Re: [patch 12/21] No Reclaim LRU Infrastructure

Lee Schermerhorn
2008-03-04T15:05:56Z

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