[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1200081115.5304.30.camel@localhost>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 14:51:54 -0500
From: Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [patch 05/19] split LRU lists into anon & file sets
On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 11:15 -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:59:18 -0500
> Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 10:42 -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > > On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:24:34 +0900
> > > KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > below patch is a bit cleanup proposal.
> > > > i think LRU_FILE is more clarify than "/2".
> > > >
> > > > What do you think it?
> > >
> > > Thank you for the cleanup, your version looks a lot nicer.
> > > I have applied your patch to my series.
> > >
> >
> > Rik:
> >
> > I think we also want to do something like:
> >
> > - BUILD_BUG_ON(LRU_INACTIVE_FILE != 2 || LRU_ACTIVE_FILE != 3);
> > + BUILD_BUG_ON(LRU_INACTIVE_FILE != 2 || LRU_ACTIVE_FILE != 3 ||
> > + NR_LRU_LISTS > 6);
> >
> > Then we'll be warned if future change might break our implicit
> > assumption that any lru_list value with '0x2' set is a file lru.
>
> Restoring the code to your original version makes things work again.
>
> OTOH, I almost wonder if we should not simply define it to
>
> return (l == LRU_INACTIVE_FILE || l == LRU_ACTIVE_FILE)
>
> and just deal with it.
>
> Your version of the code is correct and probably faster, but not as
> easy to read and probably not in a hot path :)
Sure. Whatever you think will fly...
Lee
>
--
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