From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 11:15:37 -0500 From: Rik van Riel Subject: Re: [patch 05/19] split LRU lists into anon & file sets Message-ID: <20080111111537.6bd2f5e4@bree.surriel.com> In-Reply-To: <1200067158.5304.17.camel@localhost> References: <20080108205939.323955454@redhat.com> <20080108210002.638347207@redhat.com> <20080111143627.FD64.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> <20080111104258.2d1df3de@bree.surriel.com> <1200067158.5304.17.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Lee Schermerhorn Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:59:18 -0500 Lee Schermerhorn wrote: > On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 10:42 -0500, Rik van Riel wrote: > > On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:24:34 +0900 > > KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > > > > below patch is a bit cleanup proposal. > > > i think LRU_FILE is more clarify than "/2". > > > > > > What do you think it? > > > > Thank you for the cleanup, your version looks a lot nicer. > > I have applied your patch to my series. > > > > Rik: > > I think we also want to do something like: > > - BUILD_BUG_ON(LRU_INACTIVE_FILE != 2 || LRU_ACTIVE_FILE != 3); > + BUILD_BUG_ON(LRU_INACTIVE_FILE != 2 || LRU_ACTIVE_FILE != 3 || > + NR_LRU_LISTS > 6); > > Then we'll be warned if future change might break our implicit > assumption that any lru_list value with '0x2' set is a file lru. Restoring the code to your original version makes things work again. OTOH, I almost wonder if we should not simply define it to return (l == LRU_INACTIVE_FILE || l == LRU_ACTIVE_FILE) and just deal with it. Your version of the code is correct and probably faster, but not as easy to read and probably not in a hot path :) -- All rights reversed. -- 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