| Message ID | 20191125145320.GA21484@haolee.github.io (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | mm: use the existing variable instead of a duplicate statement | expand |
On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 02:53:20PM +0000, Hao Lee wrote: > The address of zone has been stored in variable 'zone', so there is no need > to get it again with a duplicate statement. > > Signed-off-by: Hao Lee <haolee.swjtu@gmail.com> Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
On 25.11.19 15:53, Hao Lee wrote: > The address of zone has been stored in variable 'zone', so there is no need > to get it again with a duplicate statement. > > Signed-off-by: Hao Lee <haolee.swjtu@gmail.com> > --- > mm/vmscan.c | 3 +-- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c > index ee4eecc7e1c2..de4b2d1e66be 100644 > --- a/mm/vmscan.c > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c > @@ -363,22 +363,21 @@ unsigned long lruvec_lru_size(struct lruvec *lruvec, enum lru_list lru, int zone > for (zid = zone_idx + 1; zid < MAX_NR_ZONES; zid++) { > struct zone *zone = &lruvec_pgdat(lruvec)->node_zones[zid]; > unsigned long size; > > if (!managed_zone(zone)) > continue; > > if (!mem_cgroup_disabled()) > size = mem_cgroup_get_zone_lru_size(lruvec, lru, zid); > else > - size = zone_page_state(&lruvec_pgdat(lruvec)->node_zones[zid], > - NR_ZONE_LRU_BASE + lru); > + size = zone_page_state(zone, NR_ZONE_LRU_BASE + lru); > lru_size -= min(size, lru_size); > } > > return lru_size; > > } > > /* > * Add a shrinker callback to be called from the vm. > */ > Maybe tweak the subject to something meaningful: "mm/vmscan: reuse stored zone in lruvec_lru_size()" Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 at 20:13, David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote: > > On 25.11.19 15:53, Hao Lee wrote: > > The address of zone has been stored in variable 'zone', so there is no need > > to get it again with a duplicate statement. > > > > --- a/mm/vmscan.c > > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c > > @@ -363,22 +363,21 @@ unsigned long lruvec_lru_size(struct lruvec *lruvec, enum lru_list lru, int zone > > for (zid = zone_idx + 1; zid < MAX_NR_ZONES; zid++) { > > struct zone *zone = &lruvec_pgdat(lruvec)->node_zones[zid]; > > unsigned long size; > > > > if (!managed_zone(zone)) > > continue; > > > > if (!mem_cgroup_disabled()) > > size = mem_cgroup_get_zone_lru_size(lruvec, lru, zid); > > else > > - size = zone_page_state(&lruvec_pgdat(lruvec)->node_zones[zid], > > - NR_ZONE_LRU_BASE + lru); > > + size = zone_page_state(zone, NR_ZONE_LRU_BASE + lru); > > lru_size -= min(size, lru_size); > > } > > > > return lru_size; > > > > } > > Maybe tweak the subject to something meaningful: > > "mm/vmscan: reuse stored zone in lruvec_lru_size()" > > Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> > Thanks. I get it! Regards, Hao Lee
On 11/25/2019 08:23 PM, Hao Lee wrote: > The address of zone has been stored in variable 'zone', so there is no need > to get it again with a duplicate statement. > > Signed-off-by: Hao Lee <haolee.swjtu@gmail.com> > --- > mm/vmscan.c | 3 +-- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c > index ee4eecc7e1c2..de4b2d1e66be 100644 > --- a/mm/vmscan.c > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c > @@ -363,22 +363,21 @@ unsigned long lruvec_lru_size(struct lruvec *lruvec, enum lru_list lru, int zone > for (zid = zone_idx + 1; zid < MAX_NR_ZONES; zid++) { > struct zone *zone = &lruvec_pgdat(lruvec)->node_zones[zid]; > unsigned long size; > > if (!managed_zone(zone)) > continue; > > if (!mem_cgroup_disabled()) > size = mem_cgroup_get_zone_lru_size(lruvec, lru, zid); > else > - size = zone_page_state(&lruvec_pgdat(lruvec)->node_zones[zid], > - NR_ZONE_LRU_BASE + lru); > + size = zone_page_state(zone, NR_ZONE_LRU_BASE + lru); Is not this already merged with following commit on next-20191126 ? 54eacdb0dd8f9a ("mm: vmscan: simplify lruvec_lru_size()") > lru_size -= min(size, lru_size); > } > > return lru_size; > > } > > /* > * Add a shrinker callback to be called from the vm. > */ >
On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 at 18:02, Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com> wrote: > > > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c > > index ee4eecc7e1c2..de4b2d1e66be 100644 > > --- a/mm/vmscan.c > > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c > > @@ -363,22 +363,21 @@ unsigned long lruvec_lru_size(struct lruvec *lruvec, enum lru_list lru, int zone > > for (zid = zone_idx + 1; zid < MAX_NR_ZONES; zid++) { > > struct zone *zone = &lruvec_pgdat(lruvec)->node_zones[zid]; > > unsigned long size; > > > > if (!managed_zone(zone)) > > continue; > > > > if (!mem_cgroup_disabled()) > > size = mem_cgroup_get_zone_lru_size(lruvec, lru, zid); > > else > > - size = zone_page_state(&lruvec_pgdat(lruvec)->node_zones[zid], > > - NR_ZONE_LRU_BASE + lru); > > + size = zone_page_state(zone, NR_ZONE_LRU_BASE + lru); > > Is not this already merged with following commit on next-20191126 ? > > 54eacdb0dd8f9a ("mm: vmscan: simplify lruvec_lru_size()") Yes...That's really a coincidence... I use torvalds' tree to develop but never think this function has been refactored on next tree just a few days ago. Thank you. Regards, Hao Lee
diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c index ee4eecc7e1c2..de4b2d1e66be 100644 --- a/mm/vmscan.c +++ b/mm/vmscan.c @@ -363,22 +363,21 @@ unsigned long lruvec_lru_size(struct lruvec *lruvec, enum lru_list lru, int zone for (zid = zone_idx + 1; zid < MAX_NR_ZONES; zid++) { struct zone *zone = &lruvec_pgdat(lruvec)->node_zones[zid]; unsigned long size; if (!managed_zone(zone)) continue; if (!mem_cgroup_disabled()) size = mem_cgroup_get_zone_lru_size(lruvec, lru, zid); else - size = zone_page_state(&lruvec_pgdat(lruvec)->node_zones[zid], - NR_ZONE_LRU_BASE + lru); + size = zone_page_state(zone, NR_ZONE_LRU_BASE + lru); lru_size -= min(size, lru_size); } return lru_size; } /* * Add a shrinker callback to be called from the vm. */
The address of zone has been stored in variable 'zone', so there is no need to get it again with a duplicate statement. Signed-off-by: Hao Lee <haolee.swjtu@gmail.com> --- mm/vmscan.c | 3 +-- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)