[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110428105027.GT4658@suse.de>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 11:50:27 +0100
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Johannes Weiner <jweiner@...hat.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 5/8] compaction: remove active list counting
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 01:25:22AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> acct_isolated of compaction uses page_lru_base_type which returns only
> base type of LRU list so it never returns LRU_ACTIVE_ANON or LRU_ACTIVE_FILE.
> So it's pointless to add lru[LRU_ACTIVE_[ANON|FILE]] to get sum.
>
> Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
> Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
> Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
hmm, isolate_migratepages() is doing a linear scan of PFNs and is
calling __isolate_lru_page(..ISOLATE_BOTH..). Using page_lru_base_type
happens to work because we're only interested in the number of isolated
pages and your patch still covers that. Using page_lru might be more
accurate in terms of accountancy but does not seem necessary.
Adding a comment explaining why we account for it as inactive and why
that's ok would be nice although I admit this is something I should have
done when acct_isolated() was introduced.
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
--
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