[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080304192441.1EA2.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 19:46:04 +0900
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [patch 12/21] No Reclaim LRU Infrastructure
Hi
sorry for late review.
>
> Index: linux-2.6.25-rc2-mm1/mm/Kconfig
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.25-rc2-mm1.orig/mm/Kconfig 2008-02-19 16:23:09.000000000 -0500
> +++ linux-2.6.25-rc2-mm1/mm/Kconfig 2008-02-28 11:05:04.000000000 -0500
> @@ -193,3 +193,13 @@ config NR_QUICK
> config VIRT_TO_BUS
> def_bool y
> depends on !ARCH_NO_VIRT_TO_BUS
> +
> +config NORECLAIM
> + bool "Track non-reclaimable pages (EXPERIMENTAL; 64BIT only)"
> + depends on EXPERIMENTAL && 64BIT
as far as I remembered, somebody said CONFIG_NORECLAIM is easy confusable.
may be..
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
> @@ -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??
--
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