On 2/9/21 9:43 PM, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 09:46:38AM -0800, Yang Shi wrote:
>> Both memcg_shrinker_map_size and shrinker_nr_max is maintained, but actually
>> the
>> map size can be calculated via shrinker_nr_max, so it seems unnecessary to
>> keep both.
>> Remove memcg_shrinker_map_size since shrinker_nr_max is also used by
>> iterating the
>> bit map.
>>
>> Acked-by: Kirill Tkhai <ktk...@virtuozzo.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Yang Shi <shy828...@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vba...@suse.cz>
>> ---
>> mm/vmscan.c | 18 +++++++++---------
>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
>> index e4ddaaaeffe2..641077b09e5d 100644
>> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
>> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
>> @@ -185,8 +185,10 @@ static LIST_HEAD(shrinker_list);
>> static DECLARE_RWSEM(shrinker_rwsem);
>>
>> #ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG
>> +static int shrinker_nr_max;
>>
>> -static int memcg_shrinker_map_size;
>> +#define NR_MAX_TO_SHR_MAP_SIZE(nr_max) \
>> + (DIV_ROUND_UP(nr_max, BITS_PER_LONG) * sizeof(unsigned long))
>
> How about something like this?
>
> static inline int shrinker_map_size(int nr_items)
> {
> return DIV_ROUND_UP(nr_items, BITS_PER_LONG) * sizeof(unsigned long);
> }
>
> I think it look less cryptic.
Yeah that looks nicer so I'm fine with that potential change.
> The rest of the patch looks good to me.
>
> Thanks!
>
