From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: [patch] mm-deactivate-fix-1 References: Reply-To: zlatko@iskon.hr From: Zlatko Calusic Date: 14 Jan 2001 16:48:55 +0100 In-Reply-To: Marcelo Tosatti's message of "Sun, 14 Jan 2001 10:57:30 -0200 (BRST)" Message-ID: <87ae8uw2vs.fsf@atlas.iskon.hr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Marcelo Tosatti Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Marcelo Tosatti writes: > On 14 Jan 2001, Zlatko Calusic wrote: > > > I have noticed that in deactivate_page_nolock() function pages get > > unconditionally moved from the active to the inact_dirty list. Even if > > it is really easy with additional check to put them straight to the > > inact_clean list if they're freeable. That keeps the list statistics > > more accurate and in the end should result in a little bit less CPU > > cycles burned (only one list transition, less locking). As a bonus, > > the comment above the function is now correct. :) > > > > I have tested the patch thoroughly and couldn't find any problems with > > it. It should be really safe as reclaim_page() already carefully > > checks pages before freeing. > > > > Comments? > > We want to move all deactivated pages to the inactive dirty list to get > FIFO behaviour while reclaiming them. > Ah, I see. Then your answer should be put above the function as a comment. To help other souls digging around that code (like I'm doing). :) -- Zlatko -- 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.eu.org/Linux-MM/