Re: [PATCH v1 0/2] Ignore non-LRU-based reclaim in memcg reclaim

[Johannes Weiner]

On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 08:25:29AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 12:24:08PM -0800, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > > I tried to come up with something better, but wasn't happy with any of
> > > the options, either. So I defaulted to just leaving it alone :-)
> > >
> > > It's part of the shrinker API and the name hasn't changed since the
> > > initial git import of the kernel tree. It should be fine, churn-wise.
> > 
> > Last attempt, just update_reclaim_state() (corresponding to
> > flush_reclaim_state() below). It doesn't tell a story, but neither
> > does incrementing a counter in current->reclaim_state. If that doesn't
> > make you happy I'll give up now and leave it as-is :)
> 
> This is used in different subsystem shrinkers outside mm/, so the
> name needs to be correctly namespaced. Please prefix it with the
> subsystem the function belongs to, at minimum.
> 
> mm_account_reclaimed_pages() is what is actually being done here.
> It is self describing  and leaves behind no ambiguity as to what is
> being accounted and why, nor which subsystem the accounting belongs
> to.
> 
> It doesn't matter what the internal mm/vmscan structures are called,
> all we care about is telling the mm infrastructure how many extra
> pages were freed by the shrinker....

My first preference would still be to just leave it. IMO that one line
saved in a small handful of places isn't worth the indirection,
obscuring the `current' deref etc.

But mm_account_reclaimed_pages() works for me if you really want to
enapsulate it.