From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail144.messagelabs.com (mail144.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.51]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D5FD6B003D for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:13:15 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:12:47 -0800 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: remove zone->prev_prioriy Message-Id: <20090210151247.6747f66e.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <28c262360902100257o6a8e2374v42f1ae906c53bcec@mail.gmail.com> References: <20090210184055.6FCB.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> <28c262360902100257o6a8e2374v42f1ae906c53bcec@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: MinChan Kim Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, riel@redhat.com List-ID: On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:57:01 +0900 MinChan Kim wrote: > As you know, prev_priority is used as a measure of how much stress page reclaim. > But now we doesn't need it due to split-lru's way. > > I think it would be better to remain why prev_priority isn't needed any more > and how split-lru can replace prev_priority's role in changelog. > > In future, it help mm newbies understand change history, I think. Yes, I'd be fascinated to see that explanation. In http://groups.google.pn/group/linux.kernel/browse_thread/thread/fea9c9a0b43162a1 it was asserted that we intend to use prev_priority again in the future. We discussed this back in November: http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0811.2/index.html#00001 And I think that I still think that the VM got worse due to its (new) failure to track previous state. IIRC, the response to that concern was quite similar to handwavy waffling. -- 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