Re: [PATCH v2] mm: memcg: Use larger batches for proactive reclaim

[Johannes Weiner]

On Fri, Feb 02, 2024 at 02:13:20PM -0800, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 2, 2024 at 2:10 PM T.J. Mercier <tjmercier@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > @@ -6965,6 +6965,9 @@ static ssize_t memory_reclaim(struct kernfs_open_file *of, char *buf,
> >         while (nr_reclaimed < nr_to_reclaim) {
> >                 unsigned long reclaimed;
> >
> > +               /* Will converge on zero, but reclaim enforces a minimum */
> > +               unsigned long batch_size = (nr_to_reclaim - nr_reclaimed) / 4;
> > +
> >                 if (signal_pending(current))
> >                         return -EINTR;
> >
> > @@ -6977,7 +6980,7 @@ static ssize_t memory_reclaim(struct kernfs_open_file *of, char *buf,
> >                         lru_add_drain_all();
> >
> >                 reclaimed = try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages(memcg,
> > -                                       min(nr_to_reclaim - nr_reclaimed, SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX),
> > +                                       batch_size,
> >                                         GFP_KERNEL, reclaim_options);
> 
> I think the above two lines should now fit into one.

Yeah might as well compact that again. The newline in the declarations
is a bit unusual for this codebase as well, and puts the comment sort
of away from the "reclaim" it refers to. This?

		/* Will converge on zero, but reclaim enforces a minimum */
		batch_size = (nr_to_reclaim - nr_reclaimed) / 4;

		reclaimed = try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages(memcg, batch_size,
					GFP_KERNEL, reclaim_options);

But agreed, it's all just nitpickety nickpicking. :)

Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx>