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

[Rik van Riel]

On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 10:05:58 -0500
Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@xxxxxx> 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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/