[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080304162113.601ebb30@cuia.boston.redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 16:21:13 -0500
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To: Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [patch 12/21] No Reclaim LRU Infrastructure
On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 10:05:58 -0500
Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com> 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@...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