Re: [PATCH/RFC 5/14] Reclaim Scalability: Use an indexed array for LRU variables

[Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@hp.com>]

On Mon, 2007-09-17 at 14:40 +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On (14/09/07 16:54), Lee Schermerhorn didst pronounce:
> > [PATCH/RFC] 05/15  Reclaim Scalability:   Use an indexed array for LRU variables
> > 
> > From clameter@sgi.com Wed Aug 29 11:39:51 2007
> > 
<snip>
> >  
> >  static inline void
> >  del_page_from_lru(struct zone *zone, struct page *page)
> >  {
> > +	enum lru_list l = LRU_INACTIVE;
> > +
> >  	list_del(&page->lru);
> >  	if (PageActive(page)) {
> >  		__ClearPageActive(page);
> >  		__dec_zone_state(zone, NR_ACTIVE);
> > -	} else {
> > -		__dec_zone_state(zone, NR_INACTIVE);
> > +		l = LRU_ACTIVE;
> >  	}
> > +	__dec_zone_state(zone, NR_INACTIVE + l);
> 
> It looks like you can call __dec_zone_state() twice for active pages
> here. Was it meant to be?
> 
> enum lru_list l = LRU_INACTIVE;
> 
> If (PageActive(page)) {
> 	__ClearPageActive(page);
> 	l = LRU_INACTIVE;
> } else {
> 	l = LRU_ACTIVE;
> }
> __dec_zone_state(zone, NR_INACTIVE + l);
> 
> ?

Yes, another botched merge :-(.  This does explain why I'm seeing the
active memory in meminfo going to zero and staying there after I kill
off the tests.  Will fix and retest.

It's great to have other eyes looking at these!

Thanks.

Lee

<snip>

--
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>