From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 16:18:35 -0800 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: page fault scalability patch V12 [0/7]: Overview and performance tests Message-Id: <20041210161835.5b0b0828.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20041210141258.491f3d48.akpm@osdl.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Hugh Dickins Cc: clameter@sgi.com, torvalds@osdl.org, benh@kernel.crashing.org, nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hugh Dickins wrote: > > On Fri, 10 Dec 2004, Andrew Morton wrote: > > Hugh Dickins wrote: > > > > > > > > (I do wonder why do_anonymous_page calls mark_page_accessed as well as > > > > > lru_cache_add_active. The other instances of lru_cache_add_active for > > > > > an anonymous page don't mark_page_accessed i.e. SetPageReferenced too, > > > > > why here? But that's nothing new with your patch, and although you've > > > > > reordered the calls, the final page state is the same as before.) > > > > The point is a good one - I guess that code is a holdover from earlier > > implementations. > > > > This is equivalent, no? > > Yes, it is equivalent to use SetPageReferenced(page) there instead. > But why is do_anonymous_page adding anything to lru_cache_add_active, > when its other callers leave it at that? What's special about the > do_anonymous_page case? do_swap_page() is effectively doing the same as do_anonymous_page(). do_wp_page() and do_no_page() appear to be errant. -- 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: aart@kvack.org