[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0711061818360.5249@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 18:20:44 -0800 (PST)
From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/10] free swap space entries if vm_swap_full()
On Sat, 3 Nov 2007, Rik van Riel wrote:
> @@ -1142,14 +1145,13 @@ force_reclaim_mapped:
> }
> }
> __mod_zone_page_state(zone, NR_INACTIVE, pgmoved);
> + spin_unlock_irq(&zone->lru_lock);
> pgdeactivate += pgmoved;
> - if (buffer_heads_over_limit) {
> - spin_unlock_irq(&zone->lru_lock);
> - pagevec_strip(&pvec);
> - spin_lock_irq(&zone->lru_lock);
> - }
>
> + if (buffer_heads_over_limit)
> + pagevec_strip(&pvec);
> pgmoved = 0;
> + spin_lock_irq(&zone->lru_lock);
> while (!list_empty(&l_active)) {
> page = lru_to_page(&l_active);
> prefetchw_prev_lru_page(page, &l_active, flags);
Why are we dropping the lock here now? There would be less activity
on the lru_lock if we would only drop it if necessary.
> @@ -1163,6 +1165,8 @@ force_reclaim_mapped:
> __mod_zone_page_state(zone, NR_ACTIVE, pgmoved);
> pgmoved = 0;
> spin_unlock_irq(&zone->lru_lock);
> + if (vm_swap_full())
> + pagevec_swap_free(&pvec);
> __pagevec_release(&pvec);
> spin_lock_irq(&zone->lru_lock);
> }
Same here. Maybe the spin_unlock and the spin_lock can go into
pagevec_swap_free?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists