From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1031556Ab2COBsa (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Mar 2012 21:48:30 -0400 Received: from mail-pz0-f52.google.com ([209.85.210.52]:33479 "EHLO mail-pz0-f52.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760411Ab2COBs2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Mar 2012 21:48:28 -0400 Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 18:47:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Hugh Dickins X-X-Sender: hugh@eggly.anvils To: Konstantin Khlebnikov cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Andrew Morton , Johannes Weiner , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7 v2] mm: rework __isolate_lru_page() file/anon filter In-Reply-To: <4F5B22DE.4020402@openvz.org> Message-ID: References: <20120229091547.29236.28230.stgit@zurg> <20120303091327.17599.80336.stgit@zurg> <20120308143034.f3521b1e.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <4F59AE3C.5040200@openvz.org> <4F5AFAF0.6060608@openvz.org> <4F5B22DE.4020402@openvz.org> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LSU 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 10 Mar 2012, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote: > Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote: > > > > No, for non-lumpy isolation we don't need this check at all, > > because all pages already picked from right lru list. > > > > I'll send separate patch for this (on top v5 patchset), after meditation =) > > Heh, looks like we don't need these checks at all: > without RECLAIM_MODE_LUMPYRECLAIM we isolate only pages from right lru, > with RECLAIM_MODE_LUMPYRECLAIM we isolate pages from all evictable lru. > Thus we should check only PageUnevictable() on lumpy reclaim. Yes, those were great simplfying insights: I'm puzzling over why you didn't follow through on them in your otherwise nice 4.5/7, which still involves lru bits in the isolate mode? Hugh