vmscan: kill prev_priority completely

Since 2.6.28 zone->prev_priority is unused. Then it can be removed
safely. It reduce stack usage slightly.

Now I have to say that I'm sorry. 2 years ago, I thought prev_priority
can be integrate again, it's useful. but four (or more) times trying
haven't got good performance number. Thus I give up such approach.

The rest of this changelog is notes on prev_priority and why it existed in
the first place and why it might be not necessary any more. This information
is based heavily on discussions between Andrew Morton, Rik van Riel and
Kosaki Motohiro who is heavily quotes from.

Historically prev_priority was important because it determined when the VM
would start unmapping PTE pages. i.e. there are no balances of note within
the VM, Anon vs File and Mapped vs Unmapped. Without prev_priority, there
is a potential risk of unnecessarily increasing minor faults as a large
amount of read activity of use-once pages could push mapped pages to the
end of the LRU and get unmapped.

There is no proof this is still a problem but currently it is not considered
to be. Active files are not deactivated if the active file list is smaller
than the inactive list reducing the liklihood that file-mapped pages are
being pushed off the LRU and referenced executable pages are kept on the
active list to avoid them getting pushed out by read activity.

Even if it is a problem, prev_priority prev_priority wouldn't works
nowadays. First of all, current vmscan still a lot of UP centric code. it
expose some weakness on some dozens CPUs machine. I think we need more and
more improvement.

The problem is, current vmscan mix up per-system-pressure, per-zone-pressure
and per-task-pressure a bit. example, prev_priority try to boost priority to
other concurrent priority. but if the another task have mempolicy restriction,
it is unnecessary, but also makes wrong big latency and exceeding reclaim.
per-task based priority + prev_priority adjustment make the emulation of
per-system pressure. but it have two issue 1) too rough and brutal emulation
2) we need per-zone pressure, not per-system.

Another example, currently DEF_PRIORITY is 12. it mean the lru rotate about
2 cycle (1/4096 + 1/2048 + 1/1024 + .. + 1) before invoking OOM-Killer.
but if 10,0000 thrreads enter DEF_PRIORITY reclaim at the same time, the
system have higher memory pressure than priority==0 (1/4096*10,000 > 2).
prev_priority can't solve such multithreads workload issue. In other word,
prev_priority concept assume the sysmtem don't have lots threads."

Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
Reviewed-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Reviewed-by: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>
Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Cc: Michael Rubin <mrubin@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>

1 files changed, 0 insertions, 31 deletions

diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
index 20a8193a7af8..31abd1c2c0c5 100644
--- a/mm/memcontrol.c
+++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
@@ -211,8 +211,6 @@ struct mem_cgroup {
 	*/
 	spinlock_t reclaim_param_lock;
 
-	int	prev_priority;	/* for recording reclaim priority */
-
 	/*
 	 * While reclaiming in a hierarchy, we cache the last child we
 	 * reclaimed from.
@@ -858,35 +856,6 @@ int task_in_mem_cgroup(struct task_struct *task, const struct mem_cgroup *mem)
 	return ret;
 }
 
-/*
- * prev_priority control...this will be used in memory reclaim path.
- */
-int mem_cgroup_get_reclaim_priority(struct mem_cgroup *mem)
-{
-	int prev_priority;
-
-	spin_lock(&mem->reclaim_param_lock);
-	prev_priority = mem->prev_priority;
-	spin_unlock(&mem->reclaim_param_lock);
-
-	return prev_priority;
-}
-
-void mem_cgroup_note_reclaim_priority(struct mem_cgroup *mem, int priority)
-{
-	spin_lock(&mem->reclaim_param_lock);
-	if (priority < mem->prev_priority)
-		mem->prev_priority = priority;
-	spin_unlock(&mem->reclaim_param_lock);
-}
-
-void mem_cgroup_record_reclaim_priority(struct mem_cgroup *mem, int priority)
-{
-	spin_lock(&mem->reclaim_param_lock);
-	mem->prev_priority = priority;
-	spin_unlock(&mem->reclaim_param_lock);
-}
-
 static int calc_inactive_ratio(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, unsigned long *present_pages)
 {
 	unsigned long active;