From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261239AbVFOH36 (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Jun 2005 03:29:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261255AbVFOH36 (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Jun 2005 03:29:58 -0400 Received: from holomorphy.com ([66.93.40.71]:41110 "EHLO holomorphy.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261239AbVFOH3z (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Jun 2005 03:29:55 -0400 Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 00:29:52 -0700 From: William Lee Irwin III To: "liyu@LAN" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: one question about LRU mechanism Message-ID: <20050615072952.GB3913@holomorphy.com> References: <1118812376.32766.4.camel@liyu.ccoss.com.cn> <20050615052530.GA3913@holomorphy.com> <1118817991.5828.23.camel@liyu.ccoss.com.cn> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1118817991.5828.23.camel@liyu.ccoss.com.cn> Organization: The Domain of Holomorphy User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 02:46:30PM +0800, liyu@LAN wrote: > In 2.6.11.11, mm do not have function isolate_lru_pages(), but I > downloaded linux-2.6.11.12.tar.bz2 source tarball, and apply follow two > patches in order: > patch-2.6.12-rc6 > 2.6.12-rc6-mm1 > Oh, Have any error in this process? patch program say it can not change > some files , and save some *.rej files. but these *rej do not include > mm/vmscan.c. > This new function called two times in shrink_cache() and > refill_inactive_zone(). > The main part of isolate_lru_pages() is [...] > I think, this change that new function isolate_lru_pages() is one kind > of refactoring (method extract ??), not one essence change. Agreed. Mainly I mentioned it in case the symbol was recently enough introduced to not be visible in the sources you'd reviewed. : On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 02:46:30PM +0800, liyu@LAN wrote: > the call: > list_del(&page->lru); > as I known, just delete its argument from list, but not its previous > element. so, It is most newest page that just be appended to > active_list. > I think, may be, codes like this will be better. [...] > This is just my flimsy perspective. Not so flimsy. You seem to understand things well. Unfortunately I am the kind of person who thinks less about how things should be to be the best they could be than about how they work now and could work for some specific effect. I don't have any opinion about it being better or worse. -- wli