Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 15 Aug 2023 16:58:04 +0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 6/9] mm/compaction: rename is_via_compact_memory to compaction_with_allocation_order | From | Baolin Wang <> |
| |
On 8/5/2023 7:07 PM, Kemeng Shi wrote: > We have order = -1 via proactive compaction, the is_via_compact_memory is > not proper name anymore. > As cc->order informs the compaction to satisfy a allocation with that > order, so rename it to compaction_with_allocation_order. > > Signed-off-by: Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@huaweicloud.com> > --- > mm/compaction.c | 11 +++++------ > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/mm/compaction.c b/mm/compaction.c > index d8416d3dd445..b5a699ed526b 100644 > --- a/mm/compaction.c > +++ b/mm/compaction.c > @@ -2055,12 +2055,11 @@ static isolate_migrate_t isolate_migratepages(struct compact_control *cc) > } > > /* > - * order == -1 is expected when compacting via > - * /proc/sys/vm/compact_memory > + * compact to satisfy allocation with target order > */ > -static inline bool is_via_compact_memory(int order) > +static inline bool compaction_with_allocation_order(int order)
I know naming is hard, but this name is not good enough that can show the compaction mode. But the original one could.
> { > - return order == -1; > + return order != -1; > } > > /* > @@ -2200,7 +2199,7 @@ static enum compact_result __compact_finished(struct compact_control *cc) > goto out; > } > > - if (is_via_compact_memory(cc->order)) > + if (!compaction_with_allocation_order(cc->order)) > return COMPACT_CONTINUE; > > /* > @@ -2390,7 +2389,7 @@ compact_zone(struct compact_control *cc, struct capture_control *capc) > > cc->migratetype = gfp_migratetype(cc->gfp_mask); > > - if (!is_via_compact_memory(cc->order)) { > + if (compaction_with_allocation_order(cc->order)) { > unsigned long watermark; > > /* Allocation can already succeed, nothing to do */
| |