From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
"riel@redhat.com" <riel@redhat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"tytso@mit.edu" <tytso@mit.edu>,
"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
"elladan@eskimo.com" <elladan@eskimo.com>,
"npiggin@suse.de" <npiggin@suse.de>,
"Barnes, Jesse" <jesse.barnes@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: count only reclaimable lru pages
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:28:11 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1247754491.6586.23.camel@laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090716142533.GA27165@localhost>
On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 22:25 +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > Reclaimable? Are all pages on the LRUs truly reclaimable?
>
> No, only possibly reclaimable :)
>
> What would you suggest? In fact I'm not totally comfortable with it.
> Maybe it would be safer to simply stick with the old _lru_pages
> naming?
Nah, I like the reclaimable name, these pages are at least potentially
reclaimable.
lru_pages() is definately not correct anymore since you exclude the
unevictable and possibly the anon pages.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
"riel@redhat.com" <riel@redhat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"tytso@mit.edu" <tytso@mit.edu>,
"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
"elladan@eskimo.com" <elladan@eskimo.com>,
"npiggin@suse.de" <npiggin@suse.de>,
"Barnes, Jesse" <jesse.barnes@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: count only reclaimable lru pages
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:28:11 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1247754491.6586.23.camel@laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090716142533.GA27165@localhost>
On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 22:25 +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > Reclaimable? Are all pages on the LRUs truly reclaimable?
>
> No, only possibly reclaimable :)
>
> What would you suggest? In fact I'm not totally comfortable with it.
> Maybe it would be safer to simply stick with the old _lru_pages
> naming?
Nah, I like the reclaimable name, these pages are at least potentially
reclaimable.
lru_pages() is definately not correct anymore since you exclude the
unevictable and possibly the anon pages.
--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-07-16 14:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-07-16 13:34 [PATCH] mm: count only reclaimable lru pages Wu Fengguang
2009-07-16 13:34 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-07-16 13:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-07-16 13:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-07-16 13:49 ` Rik van Riel
2009-07-16 13:49 ` Rik van Riel
2009-07-16 14:00 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-07-16 14:00 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-07-16 14:25 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-07-16 14:25 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-07-16 14:28 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2009-07-16 14:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-07-16 14:39 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-07-16 14:39 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-07-16 14:42 ` Rik van Riel
2009-07-16 14:42 ` Rik van Riel
2009-07-16 15:09 ` [PATCH] mm: count only reclaimable lru pages v2 Wu Fengguang
2009-07-16 15:09 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-07-16 15:59 ` Johannes Weiner
2009-07-16 15:59 ` Johannes Weiner
2009-07-16 16:21 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-07-16 16:21 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-07-16 23:53 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-07-16 23:53 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-07-16 14:17 ` [PATCH] mm: count only reclaimable lru pages Minchan Kim
2009-07-16 14:17 ` Minchan Kim
2009-07-16 16:15 ` David Howells
2009-07-16 16:15 ` David Howells
2009-07-16 16:24 ` Rik van Riel
2009-07-16 16:24 ` Rik van Riel
2009-07-16 17:11 ` David Howells
2009-07-16 17:11 ` David Howells
2009-07-16 18:51 ` Li, Ming Chun
2009-07-16 18:51 ` Li, Ming Chun
2009-07-17 4:57 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-07-17 4:57 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-07-17 6:32 ` Li, Ming Chun
2009-07-17 6:32 ` Li, Ming Chun
2009-07-16 16:21 ` Jesse Barnes
2009-07-16 16:21 ` Jesse Barnes
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1247754491.6586.23.camel@laptop \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cl@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=elladan@eskimo.com \
--cc=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=jesse.barnes@intel.com \
--cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=minchan.kim@gmail.com \
--cc=npiggin@suse.de \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.