From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: [patch 12/21] No Reclaim LRU Infrastructure From: Lee Schermerhorn In-Reply-To: <20080304192441.1EA2.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> References: <20080228192908.126720629@redhat.com> <20080228192929.031646681@redhat.com> <20080304192441.1EA2.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 10:05:58 -0500 Message-Id: <1204643158.5338.5.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: KOSAKI Motohiro Cc: Rik van Riel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Tue, 2008-03-04 at 19:46 +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > Hi > > sorry for late review. > > > > > Index: linux-2.6.25-rc2-mm1/mm/Kconfig > > =================================================================== > > --- linux-2.6.25-rc2-mm1.orig/mm/Kconfig 2008-02-19 16:23:09.000000000 -0500 > > +++ linux-2.6.25-rc2-mm1/mm/Kconfig 2008-02-28 11:05:04.000000000 -0500 > > @@ -193,3 +193,13 @@ config NR_QUICK > > config VIRT_TO_BUS > > def_bool y > > depends on !ARCH_NO_VIRT_TO_BUS > > + > > +config NORECLAIM > > + bool "Track non-reclaimable pages (EXPERIMENTAL; 64BIT only)" > > + depends on EXPERIMENTAL && 64BIT > > as far as I remembered, somebody said CONFIG_NORECLAIM is easy confusable. > may be.. > > IMHO insert "lru" word is better. > example, > > config NORECLAIM_LRU > bool "Zone LRU of track non-reclaimable pages (EXPERIMENTAL; 64BIT only)" > depends on EXPERIMENTAL && 64BIT OK. But, I'd suggest the 'bool' description be something like: config NORECLAIM_LRU bool "Add LRU list to track non-reclaimable pages (EXPERIMENTAL; 64BIT only)" > > > > @@ -356,8 +380,10 @@ void release_pages(struct page **pages, > > zone = pagezone; > > spin_lock_irqsave(&zone->lru_lock, flags); > > } > > - VM_BUG_ON(!PageLRU(page)); > > - __ClearPageLRU(page); > > + is_lru_page = PageLRU(page); > > + VM_BUG_ON(!(is_lru_page)); > > + if (is_lru_page) > > + __ClearPageLRU(page); > > del_page_from_lru(zone, page); > > } > > it seems unnecessary change?? Hmmm. Not sure what I was thinking here. Might be a relic of some previous debug instrumentation. Guess I don't have any problem with removing this change. Lee -- 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