Re: [V5 PATCH 08/26] memcontrol: use N_MEMORY instead N_HIGH_MEMORY

2012-10-31 Thread Michal Hocko 
On Wed 31-10-12 15:03:36, Wen Congyang wrote:
> At 10/30/2012 04:46 AM, David Rientjes Wrote:
> > On Mon, 29 Oct 2012, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
[...]
> >> In one word, we need a N_MEMORY. We just intrude it as an alias to
> >> N_HIGH_MEMORY and fix all im-proper usages of N_HIGH_MEMORY in late 
> >> patches.
> >>
> > 
> > If this is really that problematic (and it appears it's not given that 
> > there are many use cases of it and people tend to get it right), then why 
> > not simply rename N_HIGH_MEMORY instead of introducing yet another 
> > nodemask to the equation?
> 
> The reason is that we need a node which only contains movable memory. This
> feature is very important for node hotplug. So we will add a new nodemask
> for movable memory. N_MEMORY contains movable memory but N_HIGH_MEMORY
> doesn't contain it.

OK, so the N_MOVABLE_MEMORY (or how you will call it) requires that all
the allocations will be migrateable?
How do you want to achieve that with the page_cgroup descriptors? (see
bellow)

On Mon 29-10-12 23:20:58, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
[...]
> diff --git a/mm/page_cgroup.c b/mm/page_cgroup.c
> index 5ddad0c..c1054ad 100644
> --- a/mm/page_cgroup.c
> +++ b/mm/page_cgroup.c
> @@ -271,7 +271,7 @@ void __init page_cgroup_init(void)
>   if (mem_cgroup_disabled())
>   return;
>  
> - for_each_node_state(nid, N_HIGH_MEMORY) {
> + for_each_node_state(nid, N_MEMORY) {
>   unsigned long start_pfn, end_pfn;
>  
>   start_pfn = node_start_pfn(nid);

This will call init_section_page_cgroup(pfn, nid) later which allocates
page_cgroup descriptors which are not movable. Or is there any code in
your patchset that handles this?
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [V5 PATCH 08/26] memcontrol: use N_MEMORY instead N_HIGH_MEMORY

2012-10-31 Thread Michal Hocko 
On Wed 31-10-12 15:03:36, Wen Congyang wrote:
 At 10/30/2012 04:46 AM, David Rientjes Wrote:
  On Mon, 29 Oct 2012, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
[...]
  In one word, we need a N_MEMORY. We just intrude it as an alias to
  N_HIGH_MEMORY and fix all im-proper usages of N_HIGH_MEMORY in late 
  patches.
 
  
  If this is really that problematic (and it appears it's not given that 
  there are many use cases of it and people tend to get it right), then why 
  not simply rename N_HIGH_MEMORY instead of introducing yet another 
  nodemask to the equation?
 
 The reason is that we need a node which only contains movable memory. This
 feature is very important for node hotplug. So we will add a new nodemask
 for movable memory. N_MEMORY contains movable memory but N_HIGH_MEMORY
 doesn't contain it.

OK, so the N_MOVABLE_MEMORY (or how you will call it) requires that all
the allocations will be migrateable?
How do you want to achieve that with the page_cgroup descriptors? (see
bellow)

On Mon 29-10-12 23:20:58, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
[...]
 diff --git a/mm/page_cgroup.c b/mm/page_cgroup.c
 index 5ddad0c..c1054ad 100644
 --- a/mm/page_cgroup.c
 +++ b/mm/page_cgroup.c
 @@ -271,7 +271,7 @@ void __init page_cgroup_init(void)
   if (mem_cgroup_disabled())
   return;
  
 - for_each_node_state(nid, N_HIGH_MEMORY) {
 + for_each_node_state(nid, N_MEMORY) {
   unsigned long start_pfn, end_pfn;
  
   start_pfn = node_start_pfn(nid);

This will call init_section_page_cgroup(pfn, nid) later which allocates
page_cgroup descriptors which are not movable. Or is there any code in
your patchset that handles this?
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [V5 PATCH 08/26] memcontrol: use N_MEMORY instead N_HIGH_MEMORY

2012-10-29 Thread Michal Hocko 
On Mon 29-10-12 14:08:05, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012, Michal Hocko wrote:
> 
> > > > > N_HIGH_MEMORY stands for the nodes that has normal or high memory.
> > > > > N_MEMORY stands for the nodes that has any memory.
> > > > 
> > > > What is the difference of those two?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Patch 5 in the series 
> > 
> > Strange, I do not see that one at the mailing list.
> > 
> 
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel=135152595827692

Thanks!

> > > introduces it to be equal to N_HIGH_MEMORY, so 
> > 
> > So this is just a rename? If yes it would be much esier if it was
> > mentioned in the patch description.
> > 
> 
> It's not even a rename even though it should be, it's adding yet another 
> node_states that is equal to N_HIGH_MEMORY since that state already 
> includes all memory.  

Which is really strange because I do not see any reason for yet another
alias if the follow up patches rename all of them (I didn't try to apply
the whole series to check that so I might be wrong here).

> It's just a matter of taste but I think we should be renaming it
> instead of aliasing it (unless you actually want to make N_HIGH_MEMORY
> only include nodes with highmem, but nothing depends on that).

Agreed, I've always considered N_HIGH_MEMORY misleading and confusing so
renaming it would really make a lot of sense to me.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [V5 PATCH 08/26] memcontrol: use N_MEMORY instead N_HIGH_MEMORY

2012-10-29 Thread David Rientjes 
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012, Michal Hocko wrote:

> > > > N_HIGH_MEMORY stands for the nodes that has normal or high memory.
> > > > N_MEMORY stands for the nodes that has any memory.
> > > 
> > > What is the difference of those two?
> > > 
> > 
> > Patch 5 in the series 
> 
> Strange, I do not see that one at the mailing list.
> 

http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel=135152595827692

> > introduces it to be equal to N_HIGH_MEMORY, so 
> 
> So this is just a rename? If yes it would be much esier if it was
> mentioned in the patch description.
> 

It's not even a rename even though it should be, it's adding yet another 
node_states that is equal to N_HIGH_MEMORY since that state already 
includes all memory.  It's just a matter of taste but I think we should be 
renaming it instead of aliasing it (unless you actually want to make 
N_HIGH_MEMORY only include nodes with highmem, but nothing depends on 
that).
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [V5 PATCH 08/26] memcontrol: use N_MEMORY instead N_HIGH_MEMORY

2012-10-29 Thread Michal Hocko 
On Mon 29-10-12 13:40:39, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012, Michal Hocko wrote:
> 
> > > N_HIGH_MEMORY stands for the nodes that has normal or high memory.
> > > N_MEMORY stands for the nodes that has any memory.
> > 
> > What is the difference of those two?
> > 
> 
> Patch 5 in the series 

Strange, I do not see that one at the mailing list.

> introduces it to be equal to N_HIGH_MEMORY, so 

So this is just a rename? If yes it would be much esier if it was
mentioned in the patch description.

> accepting this patch would be an implicit ack of the direction taken 
> there.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [V5 PATCH 08/26] memcontrol: use N_MEMORY instead N_HIGH_MEMORY

2012-10-29 Thread David Rientjes 
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012, Michal Hocko wrote:

> > N_HIGH_MEMORY stands for the nodes that has normal or high memory.
> > N_MEMORY stands for the nodes that has any memory.
> 
> What is the difference of those two?
> 

Patch 5 in the series introduces it to be equal to N_HIGH_MEMORY, so 
accepting this patch would be an implicit ack of the direction taken 
there.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [V5 PATCH 08/26] memcontrol: use N_MEMORY instead N_HIGH_MEMORY

2012-10-29 Thread Michal Hocko 
On Mon 29-10-12 23:20:58, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> N_HIGH_MEMORY stands for the nodes that has normal or high memory.
> N_MEMORY stands for the nodes that has any memory.

What is the difference of those two?

> The code here need to handle with the nodes which have memory, we should
> use N_MEMORY instead.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan 
> ---
>  mm/memcontrol.c  |   18 +-
>  mm/page_cgroup.c |2 +-
>  2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> index 7acf43b..1b69665 100644
> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -800,7 +800,7 @@ static unsigned long mem_cgroup_nr_lru_pages(struct 
> mem_cgroup *memcg,
>   int nid;
>   u64 total = 0;
>  
> - for_each_node_state(nid, N_HIGH_MEMORY)
> + for_each_node_state(nid, N_MEMORY)
>   total += mem_cgroup_node_nr_lru_pages(memcg, nid, lru_mask);
>   return total;
>  }
> @@ -1611,9 +1611,9 @@ static void mem_cgroup_may_update_nodemask(struct 
> mem_cgroup *memcg)
>   return;
>  
>   /* make a nodemask where this memcg uses memory from */
> - memcg->scan_nodes = node_states[N_HIGH_MEMORY];
> + memcg->scan_nodes = node_states[N_MEMORY];
>  
> - for_each_node_mask(nid, node_states[N_HIGH_MEMORY]) {
> + for_each_node_mask(nid, node_states[N_MEMORY]) {
>  
>   if (!test_mem_cgroup_node_reclaimable(memcg, nid, false))
>   node_clear(nid, memcg->scan_nodes);
> @@ -1684,7 +1684,7 @@ static bool mem_cgroup_reclaimable(struct mem_cgroup 
> *memcg, bool noswap)
>   /*
>* Check rest of nodes.
>*/
> - for_each_node_state(nid, N_HIGH_MEMORY) {
> + for_each_node_state(nid, N_MEMORY) {
>   if (node_isset(nid, memcg->scan_nodes))
>   continue;
>   if (test_mem_cgroup_node_reclaimable(memcg, nid, noswap))
> @@ -3759,7 +3759,7 @@ move_account:
>   drain_all_stock_sync(memcg);
>   ret = 0;
>   mem_cgroup_start_move(memcg);
> - for_each_node_state(node, N_HIGH_MEMORY) {
> + for_each_node_state(node, N_MEMORY) {
>   for (zid = 0; !ret && zid < MAX_NR_ZONES; zid++) {
>   enum lru_list lru;
>   for_each_lru(lru) {
> @@ -4087,7 +4087,7 @@ static int memcg_numa_stat_show(struct cgroup *cont, 
> struct cftype *cft,
>  
>   total_nr = mem_cgroup_nr_lru_pages(memcg, LRU_ALL);
>   seq_printf(m, "total=%lu", total_nr);
> - for_each_node_state(nid, N_HIGH_MEMORY) {
> + for_each_node_state(nid, N_MEMORY) {
>   node_nr = mem_cgroup_node_nr_lru_pages(memcg, nid, LRU_ALL);
>   seq_printf(m, " N%d=%lu", nid, node_nr);
>   }
> @@ -4095,7 +4095,7 @@ static int memcg_numa_stat_show(struct cgroup *cont, 
> struct cftype *cft,
>  
>   file_nr = mem_cgroup_nr_lru_pages(memcg, LRU_ALL_FILE);
>   seq_printf(m, "file=%lu", file_nr);
> - for_each_node_state(nid, N_HIGH_MEMORY) {
> + for_each_node_state(nid, N_MEMORY) {
>   node_nr = mem_cgroup_node_nr_lru_pages(memcg, nid,
>   LRU_ALL_FILE);
>   seq_printf(m, " N%d=%lu", nid, node_nr);
> @@ -4104,7 +4104,7 @@ static int memcg_numa_stat_show(struct cgroup *cont, 
> struct cftype *cft,
>  
>   anon_nr = mem_cgroup_nr_lru_pages(memcg, LRU_ALL_ANON);
>   seq_printf(m, "anon=%lu", anon_nr);
> - for_each_node_state(nid, N_HIGH_MEMORY) {
> + for_each_node_state(nid, N_MEMORY) {
>   node_nr = mem_cgroup_node_nr_lru_pages(memcg, nid,
>   LRU_ALL_ANON);
>   seq_printf(m, " N%d=%lu", nid, node_nr);
> @@ -4113,7 +4113,7 @@ static int memcg_numa_stat_show(struct cgroup *cont, 
> struct cftype *cft,
>  
>   unevictable_nr = mem_cgroup_nr_lru_pages(memcg, BIT(LRU_UNEVICTABLE));
>   seq_printf(m, "unevictable=%lu", unevictable_nr);
> - for_each_node_state(nid, N_HIGH_MEMORY) {
> + for_each_node_state(nid, N_MEMORY) {
>   node_nr = mem_cgroup_node_nr_lru_pages(memcg, nid,
>   BIT(LRU_UNEVICTABLE));
>   seq_printf(m, " N%d=%lu", nid, node_nr);
> diff --git a/mm/page_cgroup.c b/mm/page_cgroup.c
> index 5ddad0c..c1054ad 100644
> --- a/mm/page_cgroup.c
> +++ b/mm/page_cgroup.c
> @@ -271,7 +271,7 @@ void __init page_cgroup_init(void)
>   if (mem_cgroup_disabled())
>   return;
>  
> - for_each_node_state(nid, N_HIGH_MEMORY) {
> + for_each_node_state(nid, N_MEMORY) {
>   unsigned long start_pfn, end_pfn;
>  
>   start_pfn = node_start_pfn(nid);
> -- 
> 1.7.4.4
> 

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at

[V5 PATCH 08/26] memcontrol: use N_MEMORY instead N_HIGH_MEMORY

2012-10-29 Thread Lai Jiangshan 
N_HIGH_MEMORY stands for the nodes that has normal or high memory.
N_MEMORY stands for the nodes that has any memory.

The code here need to handle with the nodes which have memory, we should
use N_MEMORY instead.

Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan 
---
 mm/memcontrol.c  |   18 +-
 mm/page_cgroup.c |2 +-
 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
index 7acf43b..1b69665 100644
--- a/mm/memcontrol.c
+++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
@@ -800,7 +800,7 @@ static unsigned long mem_cgroup_nr_lru_pages(struct 
mem_cgroup *memcg,
int nid;
u64 total = 0;
 
-   for_each_node_state(nid, N_HIGH_MEMORY)
+   for_each_node_state(nid, N_MEMORY)
total += mem_cgroup_node_nr_lru_pages(memcg, nid, lru_mask);
return total;
 }
@@ -1611,9 +1611,9 @@ static void mem_cgroup_may_update_nodemask(struct 
mem_cgroup *memcg)
return;
 
/* make a nodemask where this memcg uses memory from */
-   memcg->scan_nodes = node_states[N_HIGH_MEMORY];
+   memcg->scan_nodes = node_states[N_MEMORY];
 
-   for_each_node_mask(nid, node_states[N_HIGH_MEMORY]) {
+   for_each_node_mask(nid, node_states[N_MEMORY]) {
 
if (!test_mem_cgroup_node_reclaimable(memcg, nid, false))
node_clear(nid, memcg->scan_nodes);
@@ -1684,7 +1684,7 @@ static bool mem_cgroup_reclaimable(struct mem_cgroup 
*memcg, bool noswap)
/*
 * Check rest of nodes.
 */
-   for_each_node_state(nid, N_HIGH_MEMORY) {
+   for_each_node_state(nid, N_MEMORY) {
if (node_isset(nid, memcg->scan_nodes))
continue;
if (test_mem_cgroup_node_reclaimable(memcg, nid, noswap))
@@ -3759,7 +3759,7 @@ move_account:
drain_all_stock_sync(memcg);
ret = 0;
mem_cgroup_start_move(memcg);
-   for_each_node_state(node, N_HIGH_MEMORY) {
+   for_each_node_state(node, N_MEMORY) {
for (zid = 0; !ret && zid < MAX_NR_ZONES; zid++) {
enum lru_list lru;
for_each_lru(lru) {
@@ -4087,7 +4087,7 @@ static int memcg_numa_stat_show(struct cgroup *cont, 
struct cftype *cft,
 
total_nr = mem_cgroup_nr_lru_pages(memcg, LRU_ALL);
seq_printf(m, "total=%lu", total_nr);
-   for_each_node_state(nid, N_HIGH_MEMORY) {
+   for_each_node_state(nid, N_MEMORY) {
node_nr = mem_cgroup_node_nr_lru_pages(memcg, nid, LRU_ALL);
seq_printf(m, " N%d=%lu", nid, node_nr);
}
@@ -4095,7 +4095,7 @@ static int memcg_numa_stat_show(struct cgroup *cont, 
struct cftype *cft,
 
file_nr = mem_cgroup_nr_lru_pages(memcg, LRU_ALL_FILE);
seq_printf(m, "file=%lu", file_nr);
-   for_each_node_state(nid, N_HIGH_MEMORY) {
+   for_each_node_state(nid, N_MEMORY) {
node_nr = mem_cgroup_node_nr_lru_pages(memcg, nid,
LRU_ALL_FILE);
seq_printf(m, " N%d=%lu", nid, node_nr);
@@ -4104,7 +4104,7 @@ static int memcg_numa_stat_show(struct cgroup *cont, 
struct cftype *cft,
 
anon_nr = mem_cgroup_nr_lru_pages(memcg, LRU_ALL_ANON);
seq_printf(m, "anon=%lu", anon_nr);
-   for_each_node_state(nid, N_HIGH_MEMORY) {
+   for_each_node_state(nid, N_MEMORY) {
node_nr = mem_cgroup_node_nr_lru_pages(memcg, nid,
LRU_ALL_ANON);
seq_printf(m, " N%d=%lu", nid, node_nr);
@@ -4113,7 +4113,7 @@ static int memcg_numa_stat_show(struct cgroup *cont, 
struct cftype *cft,
 
unevictable_nr = mem_cgroup_nr_lru_pages(memcg, BIT(LRU_UNEVICTABLE));
seq_printf(m, "unevictable=%lu", unevictable_nr);
-   for_each_node_state(nid, N_HIGH_MEMORY) {
+   for_each_node_state(nid, N_MEMORY) {
node_nr = mem_cgroup_node_nr_lru_pages(memcg, nid,
BIT(LRU_UNEVICTABLE));
seq_printf(m, " N%d=%lu", nid, node_nr);
diff --git a/mm/page_cgroup.c b/mm/page_cgroup.c
index 5ddad0c..c1054ad 100644
--- a/mm/page_cgroup.c
+++ b/mm/page_cgroup.c
@@ -271,7 +271,7 @@ void __init page_cgroup_init(void)
if (mem_cgroup_disabled())
return;
 
-   for_each_node_state(nid, N_HIGH_MEMORY) {
+   for_each_node_state(nid, N_MEMORY) {
unsigned long start_pfn, end_pfn;
 
start_pfn = node_start_pfn(nid);
-- 
1.7.4.4

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [V5 PATCH 08/26] memcontrol: use N_MEMORY instead N_HIGH_MEMORY

2012-10-29 Thread Michal Hocko 
On Mon 29-10-12 13:40:39, David Rientjes wrote:
 On Mon, 29 Oct 2012, Michal Hocko wrote:
 
   N_HIGH_MEMORY stands for the nodes that has normal or high memory.
   N_MEMORY stands for the nodes that has any memory.
  
  What is the difference of those two?
  
 
 Patch 5 in the series 

Strange, I do not see that one at the mailing list.

 introduces it to be equal to N_HIGH_MEMORY, so 

So this is just a rename? If yes it would be much esier if it was
mentioned in the patch description.

 accepting this patch would be an implicit ack of the direction taken 
 there.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [V5 PATCH 08/26] memcontrol: use N_MEMORY instead N_HIGH_MEMORY

2012-10-29 Thread David Rientjes 
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012, Michal Hocko wrote:

N_HIGH_MEMORY stands for the nodes that has normal or high memory.
N_MEMORY stands for the nodes that has any memory.
   
   What is the difference of those two?
   
  
  Patch 5 in the series 
 
 Strange, I do not see that one at the mailing list.
 

http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernelm=135152595827692

  introduces it to be equal to N_HIGH_MEMORY, so 
 
 So this is just a rename? If yes it would be much esier if it was
 mentioned in the patch description.
 

It's not even a rename even though it should be, it's adding yet another 
node_states that is equal to N_HIGH_MEMORY since that state already 
includes all memory.  It's just a matter of taste but I think we should be 
renaming it instead of aliasing it (unless you actually want to make 
N_HIGH_MEMORY only include nodes with highmem, but nothing depends on 
that).
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [V5 PATCH 08/26] memcontrol: use N_MEMORY instead N_HIGH_MEMORY

2012-10-29 Thread Michal Hocko 
On Mon 29-10-12 14:08:05, David Rientjes wrote:
 On Mon, 29 Oct 2012, Michal Hocko wrote:
 
 N_HIGH_MEMORY stands for the nodes that has normal or high memory.
 N_MEMORY stands for the nodes that has any memory.

What is the difference of those two?

   
   Patch 5 in the series 
  
  Strange, I do not see that one at the mailing list.
  
 
 http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernelm=135152595827692

Thanks!

   introduces it to be equal to N_HIGH_MEMORY, so 
  
  So this is just a rename? If yes it would be much esier if it was
  mentioned in the patch description.
  
 
 It's not even a rename even though it should be, it's adding yet another 
 node_states that is equal to N_HIGH_MEMORY since that state already 
 includes all memory.  

Which is really strange because I do not see any reason for yet another
alias if the follow up patches rename all of them (I didn't try to apply
the whole series to check that so I might be wrong here).

 It's just a matter of taste but I think we should be renaming it
 instead of aliasing it (unless you actually want to make N_HIGH_MEMORY
 only include nodes with highmem, but nothing depends on that).

Agreed, I've always considered N_HIGH_MEMORY misleading and confusing so
renaming it would really make a lot of sense to me.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[V5 PATCH 08/26] memcontrol: use N_MEMORY instead N_HIGH_MEMORY

2012-10-29 Thread Lai Jiangshan 
N_HIGH_MEMORY stands for the nodes that has normal or high memory.
N_MEMORY stands for the nodes that has any memory.

The code here need to handle with the nodes which have memory, we should
use N_MEMORY instead.

Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan la...@cn.fujitsu.com
---
 mm/memcontrol.c  |   18 +-
 mm/page_cgroup.c |2 +-
 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
index 7acf43b..1b69665 100644
--- a/mm/memcontrol.c
+++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
@@ -800,7 +800,7 @@ static unsigned long mem_cgroup_nr_lru_pages(struct 
mem_cgroup *memcg,
int nid;
u64 total = 0;
 
-   for_each_node_state(nid, N_HIGH_MEMORY)
+   for_each_node_state(nid, N_MEMORY)
total += mem_cgroup_node_nr_lru_pages(memcg, nid, lru_mask);
return total;
 }
@@ -1611,9 +1611,9 @@ static void mem_cgroup_may_update_nodemask(struct 
mem_cgroup *memcg)
return;
 
/* make a nodemask where this memcg uses memory from */
-   memcg-scan_nodes = node_states[N_HIGH_MEMORY];
+   memcg-scan_nodes = node_states[N_MEMORY];
 
-   for_each_node_mask(nid, node_states[N_HIGH_MEMORY]) {
+   for_each_node_mask(nid, node_states[N_MEMORY]) {
 
if (!test_mem_cgroup_node_reclaimable(memcg, nid, false))
node_clear(nid, memcg-scan_nodes);
@@ -1684,7 +1684,7 @@ static bool mem_cgroup_reclaimable(struct mem_cgroup 
*memcg, bool noswap)
/*
 * Check rest of nodes.
 */
-   for_each_node_state(nid, N_HIGH_MEMORY) {
+   for_each_node_state(nid, N_MEMORY) {
if (node_isset(nid, memcg-scan_nodes))
continue;
if (test_mem_cgroup_node_reclaimable(memcg, nid, noswap))
@@ -3759,7 +3759,7 @@ move_account:
drain_all_stock_sync(memcg);
ret = 0;
mem_cgroup_start_move(memcg);
-   for_each_node_state(node, N_HIGH_MEMORY) {
+   for_each_node_state(node, N_MEMORY) {
for (zid = 0; !ret  zid  MAX_NR_ZONES; zid++) {
enum lru_list lru;
for_each_lru(lru) {
@@ -4087,7 +4087,7 @@ static int memcg_numa_stat_show(struct cgroup *cont, 
struct cftype *cft,
 
total_nr = mem_cgroup_nr_lru_pages(memcg, LRU_ALL);
seq_printf(m, total=%lu, total_nr);
-   for_each_node_state(nid, N_HIGH_MEMORY) {
+   for_each_node_state(nid, N_MEMORY) {
node_nr = mem_cgroup_node_nr_lru_pages(memcg, nid, LRU_ALL);
seq_printf(m,  N%d=%lu, nid, node_nr);
}
@@ -4095,7 +4095,7 @@ static int memcg_numa_stat_show(struct cgroup *cont, 
struct cftype *cft,
 
file_nr = mem_cgroup_nr_lru_pages(memcg, LRU_ALL_FILE);
seq_printf(m, file=%lu, file_nr);
-   for_each_node_state(nid, N_HIGH_MEMORY) {
+   for_each_node_state(nid, N_MEMORY) {
node_nr = mem_cgroup_node_nr_lru_pages(memcg, nid,
LRU_ALL_FILE);
seq_printf(m,  N%d=%lu, nid, node_nr);
@@ -4104,7 +4104,7 @@ static int memcg_numa_stat_show(struct cgroup *cont, 
struct cftype *cft,
 
anon_nr = mem_cgroup_nr_lru_pages(memcg, LRU_ALL_ANON);
seq_printf(m, anon=%lu, anon_nr);
-   for_each_node_state(nid, N_HIGH_MEMORY) {
+   for_each_node_state(nid, N_MEMORY) {
node_nr = mem_cgroup_node_nr_lru_pages(memcg, nid,
LRU_ALL_ANON);
seq_printf(m,  N%d=%lu, nid, node_nr);
@@ -4113,7 +4113,7 @@ static int memcg_numa_stat_show(struct cgroup *cont, 
struct cftype *cft,
 
unevictable_nr = mem_cgroup_nr_lru_pages(memcg, BIT(LRU_UNEVICTABLE));
seq_printf(m, unevictable=%lu, unevictable_nr);
-   for_each_node_state(nid, N_HIGH_MEMORY) {
+   for_each_node_state(nid, N_MEMORY) {
node_nr = mem_cgroup_node_nr_lru_pages(memcg, nid,
BIT(LRU_UNEVICTABLE));
seq_printf(m,  N%d=%lu, nid, node_nr);
diff --git a/mm/page_cgroup.c b/mm/page_cgroup.c
index 5ddad0c..c1054ad 100644
--- a/mm/page_cgroup.c
+++ b/mm/page_cgroup.c
@@ -271,7 +271,7 @@ void __init page_cgroup_init(void)
if (mem_cgroup_disabled())
return;
 
-   for_each_node_state(nid, N_HIGH_MEMORY) {
+   for_each_node_state(nid, N_MEMORY) {
unsigned long start_pfn, end_pfn;
 
start_pfn = node_start_pfn(nid);
-- 
1.7.4.4

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [V5 PATCH 08/26] memcontrol: use N_MEMORY instead N_HIGH_MEMORY

2012-10-29 Thread Michal Hocko 
On Mon 29-10-12 23:20:58, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
 N_HIGH_MEMORY stands for the nodes that has normal or high memory.
 N_MEMORY stands for the nodes that has any memory.

What is the difference of those two?

 The code here need to handle with the nodes which have memory, we should
 use N_MEMORY instead.
 
 Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan la...@cn.fujitsu.com
 ---
  mm/memcontrol.c  |   18 +-
  mm/page_cgroup.c |2 +-
  2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
 
 diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
 index 7acf43b..1b69665 100644
 --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
 +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
 @@ -800,7 +800,7 @@ static unsigned long mem_cgroup_nr_lru_pages(struct 
 mem_cgroup *memcg,
   int nid;
   u64 total = 0;
  
 - for_each_node_state(nid, N_HIGH_MEMORY)
 + for_each_node_state(nid, N_MEMORY)
   total += mem_cgroup_node_nr_lru_pages(memcg, nid, lru_mask);
   return total;
  }
 @@ -1611,9 +1611,9 @@ static void mem_cgroup_may_update_nodemask(struct 
 mem_cgroup *memcg)
   return;
  
   /* make a nodemask where this memcg uses memory from */
 - memcg-scan_nodes = node_states[N_HIGH_MEMORY];
 + memcg-scan_nodes = node_states[N_MEMORY];
  
 - for_each_node_mask(nid, node_states[N_HIGH_MEMORY]) {
 + for_each_node_mask(nid, node_states[N_MEMORY]) {
  
   if (!test_mem_cgroup_node_reclaimable(memcg, nid, false))
   node_clear(nid, memcg-scan_nodes);
 @@ -1684,7 +1684,7 @@ static bool mem_cgroup_reclaimable(struct mem_cgroup 
 *memcg, bool noswap)
   /*
* Check rest of nodes.
*/
 - for_each_node_state(nid, N_HIGH_MEMORY) {
 + for_each_node_state(nid, N_MEMORY) {
   if (node_isset(nid, memcg-scan_nodes))
   continue;
   if (test_mem_cgroup_node_reclaimable(memcg, nid, noswap))
 @@ -3759,7 +3759,7 @@ move_account:
   drain_all_stock_sync(memcg);
   ret = 0;
   mem_cgroup_start_move(memcg);
 - for_each_node_state(node, N_HIGH_MEMORY) {
 + for_each_node_state(node, N_MEMORY) {
   for (zid = 0; !ret  zid  MAX_NR_ZONES; zid++) {
   enum lru_list lru;
   for_each_lru(lru) {
 @@ -4087,7 +4087,7 @@ static int memcg_numa_stat_show(struct cgroup *cont, 
 struct cftype *cft,
  
   total_nr = mem_cgroup_nr_lru_pages(memcg, LRU_ALL);
   seq_printf(m, total=%lu, total_nr);
 - for_each_node_state(nid, N_HIGH_MEMORY) {
 + for_each_node_state(nid, N_MEMORY) {
   node_nr = mem_cgroup_node_nr_lru_pages(memcg, nid, LRU_ALL);
   seq_printf(m,  N%d=%lu, nid, node_nr);
   }
 @@ -4095,7 +4095,7 @@ static int memcg_numa_stat_show(struct cgroup *cont, 
 struct cftype *cft,
  
   file_nr = mem_cgroup_nr_lru_pages(memcg, LRU_ALL_FILE);
   seq_printf(m, file=%lu, file_nr);
 - for_each_node_state(nid, N_HIGH_MEMORY) {
 + for_each_node_state(nid, N_MEMORY) {
   node_nr = mem_cgroup_node_nr_lru_pages(memcg, nid,
   LRU_ALL_FILE);
   seq_printf(m,  N%d=%lu, nid, node_nr);
 @@ -4104,7 +4104,7 @@ static int memcg_numa_stat_show(struct cgroup *cont, 
 struct cftype *cft,
  
   anon_nr = mem_cgroup_nr_lru_pages(memcg, LRU_ALL_ANON);
   seq_printf(m, anon=%lu, anon_nr);
 - for_each_node_state(nid, N_HIGH_MEMORY) {
 + for_each_node_state(nid, N_MEMORY) {
   node_nr = mem_cgroup_node_nr_lru_pages(memcg, nid,
   LRU_ALL_ANON);
   seq_printf(m,  N%d=%lu, nid, node_nr);
 @@ -4113,7 +4113,7 @@ static int memcg_numa_stat_show(struct cgroup *cont, 
 struct cftype *cft,
  
   unevictable_nr = mem_cgroup_nr_lru_pages(memcg, BIT(LRU_UNEVICTABLE));
   seq_printf(m, unevictable=%lu, unevictable_nr);
 - for_each_node_state(nid, N_HIGH_MEMORY) {
 + for_each_node_state(nid, N_MEMORY) {
   node_nr = mem_cgroup_node_nr_lru_pages(memcg, nid,
   BIT(LRU_UNEVICTABLE));
   seq_printf(m,  N%d=%lu, nid, node_nr);
 diff --git a/mm/page_cgroup.c b/mm/page_cgroup.c
 index 5ddad0c..c1054ad 100644
 --- a/mm/page_cgroup.c
 +++ b/mm/page_cgroup.c
 @@ -271,7 +271,7 @@ void __init page_cgroup_init(void)
   if (mem_cgroup_disabled())
   return;
  
 - for_each_node_state(nid, N_HIGH_MEMORY) {
 + for_each_node_state(nid, N_MEMORY) {
   unsigned long start_pfn, end_pfn;
  
   start_pfn = node_start_pfn(nid);
 -- 
 1.7.4.4
 

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [V5 PATCH 08/26] memcontrol: use N_MEMORY instead N_HIGH_MEMORY

2012-10-29 Thread David Rientjes 
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012, Michal Hocko wrote:

  N_HIGH_MEMORY stands for the nodes that has normal or high memory.
  N_MEMORY stands for the nodes that has any memory.
 
 What is the difference of those two?
 

Patch 5 in the series introduces it to be equal to N_HIGH_MEMORY, so 
accepting this patch would be an implicit ack of the direction taken 
there.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/