From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 16:21:13 -0500 From: Rik van Riel Subject: Re: [patch 12/21] No Reclaim LRU Infrastructure Message-ID: <20080304162113.601ebb30@cuia.boston.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <1204643158.5338.5.camel@localhost> References: <20080228192908.126720629@redhat.com> <20080228192929.031646681@redhat.com> <20080304192441.1EA2.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> <1204643158.5338.5.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Lee Schermerhorn Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 10:05:58 -0500 Lee Schermerhorn wrote: > > IMHO insert "lru" word is better. > > example, > > > > config NORECLAIM_LRU > > bool "Zone LRU of track non-reclaimable pages (EXPERIMENTAL; 64BIT only)" > > depends on EXPERIMENTAL && 64BIT > > OK. But, I'd suggest the 'bool' description be something like: > > config NORECLAIM_LRU > bool "Add LRU list to track non-reclaimable pages (EXPERIMENTAL; 64BIT only)" I have added this in the 2.6.25-rc3-mm1 port. > > > > > @@ -356,8 +380,10 @@ void release_pages(struct page **pages, > > > zone = pagezone; > > > spin_lock_irqsave(&zone->lru_lock, flags); > > > } > > > - VM_BUG_ON(!PageLRU(page)); > > > - __ClearPageLRU(page); > > > + is_lru_page = PageLRU(page); > > > + VM_BUG_ON(!(is_lru_page)); > > > + if (is_lru_page) > > > + __ClearPageLRU(page); > > > del_page_from_lru(zone, page); > > > } > > > > it seems unnecessary change?? > > Hmmm. Not sure what I was thinking here. Might be a relic of some > previous debug instrumentation. Guess I don't have any problem with > removing this change. Removed. -- All Rights Reversed -- 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: email@kvack.org