From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail203.messagelabs.com (mail203.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.243]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5809E6B007E for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 10:28:17 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: count only reclaimable lru pages From: Peter Zijlstra In-Reply-To: <20090716142533.GA27165@localhost> References: <20090716133454.GA20550@localhost> <20090716142533.GA27165@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:28:11 +0200 Message-Id: <1247754491.6586.23.camel@laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Wu Fengguang Cc: Christoph Lameter , KOSAKI Motohiro , Minchan Kim , Johannes Weiner , David Howells , "riel@redhat.com" , Andrew Morton , LKML , "tytso@mit.edu" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "elladan@eskimo.com" , "npiggin@suse.de" , "Barnes, Jesse" List-ID: 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: email@kvack.org