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

Rik van Riel
2008-03-04T21:21:55Z

On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 10:05:58 -0500
Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@hp.com> wrote:

> > 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)"

I have added this in the 2.6.25-rc3-mm1 port.

> >
> > > @@ -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.

Removed.

--
All Rights Reversed