Re: [PATCH v21 14/19] mm/lru: introduce TestClearPageLRU

[Vlastimil Babka]

On 11/12/20 3:03 AM, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2020, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > On 11/5/20 9:55 AM, Alex Shi wrote:
> >
> > > --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> > > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> > > @@ -1542,7 +1542,7 @@ unsigned int reclaim_clean_pages_from_list(struct
> > > zone *zone,
> > >    */
> > >   int __isolate_lru_page(struct page *page, isolate_mode_t mode)
> > >   {
> > > -	int ret = -EINVAL;
> > > +	int ret = -EBUSY;
> > >     	/* Only take pages on the LRU. */
> > >   	if (!PageLRU(page))
> > > @@ -1552,8 +1552,6 @@ int __isolate_lru_page(struct page *page,
> > > isolate_mode_t mode)
> > >   	if (PageUnevictable(page) && !(mode & ISOLATE_UNEVICTABLE))
> > >   		return ret;
> > >   -	ret = -EBUSY;
> >
> > I'm not sure why this change is here, looks unrelated to the patch?
> >
> > Oh I see, you want to prevent the BUG() in isolate_lru_pages().
>
> Yes, I suggested this part of the patch to Alex, when I hit that BUG().
>
> > But due to that, the PageUnevictable check was also affected unintentionally.
> > But I don't think it's that important to BUG() when we run into
> > PageUnevictable unexpectedly, so that's probably ok.
>
> Not unintentional.  __isolate_lru_page(), or __isolate_lru_page_prepare(),
> is a silly function, used by two callers whose requirements are almost
> entirely disjoint.  The ISOLATE_UNEVICTABLE case is only for compaction.c,
> which takes no interest in -EINVAL versus -EBUSY, and has no such BUG().
>
> I think it dates back to lumpy reclaim days, and it probably made more
> sense back then.

Ah, thanks for explaining.


> > But with that, we can just make __isolate_lru_page() a bool function and
> > remove the ugly switch in  isolate_lru_pages()?
>
> I agree that the switch statement in isolate_lru_pages() seems pointless
> now, and can be turned into an if{}else{}.  But that cleanup is a
> diversion from this particular TestClearPageLRU patch, and I think from
> the whole series (checking final state of the patchset, yes, the switch
> is still there - though I think there have been variant series which
> removed it).
>
> Can we please leave that cleanup until after the series has gone in?

Sure thing!

The patch seems functionally fine, so

Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx>

> I think several of us have cleanups or optimization that we want to
> follow (I had one that inlines what isolate_migratepages_block() wanted
> of __isolate_lru_page() into that function, so simplifying what vmscan.c
> needs; perhaps that can now eliminate it completely, I've not tried
> recently).  But there was a point at which the series was growing
> ten patches per release as we all added our bits and pieces on top,
> it got harder and harder to review the whole, and further from
> getting the basics in: I do push back against that tendency.
>
> Hugh