From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx183.postini.com [74.125.245.183]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8EEA16B0033 for ; Tue, 4 Jun 2013 11:29:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <51AE07CE.9040304@sr71.net> Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2013 08:29:18 -0700 From: Dave Hansen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [v5][PATCH 5/6] mm: vmscan: batch shrink_page_list() locking operations References: <20130603200202.7F5FDE07@viggo.jf.intel.com> <20130603200208.6F71D31F@viggo.jf.intel.com> <20130604050103.GC14719@blaptop> <20130604060224.GE14719@blaptop> In-Reply-To: <20130604060224.GE14719@blaptop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Minchan Kim Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mgorman@suse.de, tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com On 06/03/2013 11:02 PM, Minchan Kim wrote: >> > Why do we need new lru list instead of using @free_pages? > I got your point that @free_pages could have freed page by > put_page_testzero of shrink_page_list and they don't have > valid mapping so __remove_mapping_batch's mapping_release_page > would access NULL pointer. > > I think it would be better to mention it in comment. :( > Otherwise, I suggest we can declare another new LIST_HEAD to > accumulate pages freed by put_page_testzero in shrink_page_list > so __remove_mapping_batch don't have to declare temporal LRU list > and can remove unnecessary list_move operation. If I respin them again, I'll add a comment. I guess we could splice the whole list over at once instead of moving the pages individually. But, what are we trying to optimize here? Saving a list_head worth of space on the stack? -- 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