Re: [PATCH 1/4] Swap migration V3: LRU operations

[Dave Hansen <haveblue@us.ibm.com>]

On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 15:59 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:

> +/*
> + * Isolate one page from the LRU lists.
> + *
> + * - zone->lru_lock must be held
> + *
> + * Result:
> + *  0 = page not on LRU list
> + *  1 = page removed from LRU list
> + * -1 = page is being freed elsewhere.
> + */

Can these return values please get some real names?  I just hate when
things have more than just fail and success as return codes.

It makes much more sense to have something like:

        if (ret == ISOLATION_IMPOSSIBLE) {
        	 list_del(&page->lru);
         	 list_add(&page->lru, src);
        }

than

+               if (rc == -1) {  /* Not possible to isolate */
+                       list_del(&page->lru);
+                       list_add(&page->lru, src);
+                } if 

The comment just makes the code harder to read.

> +static inline int
> +__isolate_lru_page(struct zone *zone, struct page *page)
> +{
> +	if (TestClearPageLRU(page)) {
> +		if (get_page_testone(page)) {
> +			/*
> +			 * It is being freed elsewhere
> +			 */
> +			__put_page(page);
> +			SetPageLRU(page);
> +			return -1;
> +		} else {
> +			if (PageActive(page))
> +				del_page_from_active_list(zone, page);
> +			else
> +				del_page_from_inactive_list(zone, page);
> +			return 1;
> +		}
> +	}
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}

How about 

+static inline int 
> +__isolate_lru_page(struct zone *zone, struct page *page)
> +{
	int ret = 0;

	if (!TestClearPageLRU(page))
		return ret;


Then, the rest of the thing doesn't need to be indented.

> +static inline void
> +__putback_lru_page(struct zone *zone, struct page *page)
> +{

__put_back_lru_page?

BTW, it would probably be nice to say where these patches came from
before Magnus. :)

-- Dave

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>