From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S935723AbeE3GMM (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 30 May 2018 02:12:12 -0400
Received: from mail-qt0-f201.google.com ([209.85.216.201]:32816 "EHLO
        mail-qt0-f201.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751478AbeE3GMK (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 30 May 2018 02:12:10 -0400
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKLyMuMSf5f4Hxa3esCX+o2glkTRCFFCuL7tsY70e4nffhEzPFg1ga4x/tESg5bBLHAJwNjXkqWXR2oB
Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 23:12:07 -0700
In-Reply-To: <20180529025722.GA25784@bombadil.infradead.org>
Message-Id: <xr93sh69wu2w.fsf@gthelen.svl.corp.google.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
References: <20180529024025.58353-1-gthelen@google.com> <20180529025722.GA25784@bombadil.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: convert scan_control.priority int => byte
From: Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> wrote:

> On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 07:40:25PM -0700, Greg Thelen wrote:
>> Reclaim priorities range from 0..12(DEF_PRIORITY).
>> scan_control.priority is a 4 byte int, which is overkill.
>> 
>> Since commit 6538b8ea886e ("x86_64: expand kernel stack to 16K") x86_64
>> stack overflows are not an issue.  But it's inefficient to use 4 bytes
>> for priority.
>
> If you're looking to shave a few more bytes, allocation order can fit
> in a u8 too (can't be more than 6 bits, and realistically won't be more
> than 4 bits).  reclaim_idx likewise will fit in a u8, and actually won't
> be more than 3 bits.

Nod.  Good tip.  Included in ("[PATCH v2] mm: condense scan_control").

> I am sceptical that nr_to_reclaim should really be an unsigned long; I
> don't think we should be trying to free 4 billion pages in a single call.
> nr_scanned might be over 4 billion (!) but nr_reclaimed can probably
> shrink to unsigned int along with nr_to_reclaim.

Agreed.  For patch simplicity, I'll pass on this for now.