linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] mm: Remove lru parameter from __pagevec_lru

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20130515155601.370bb7c62a02487b422f7613@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Wed, 15 May 2013 15:56:01 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Cc:	Alexey Lyahkov <alexey.lyashkov@...il.com>,
	Andrew Perepechko <anserper@...ru>,
	Robin Dong <sanbai@...bao.com>, Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Bernd Schubert <bernd.schubert@...tmail.fm>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>,
	Linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] mm: Remove lru parameter from __pagevec_lru_add and
 remove parts of pagevec API

On Mon, 13 May 2013 11:21:22 +0100 Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de> wrote:

> Now that the LRU to add a page to is decided at LRU-add time, remove the
> misleading lru parameter from __pagevec_lru_add. A consequence of this is
> that the pagevec_lru_add_file, pagevec_lru_add_anon and similar helpers
> are misleading as the caller no longer has direct control over what LRU
> the page is added to. Unused helpers are removed by this patch and existing
> users of pagevec_lru_add_file() are converted to use lru_cache_add_file()
> directly and use the per-cpu pagevecs instead of creating their own pagevec.

Well maybe.  The `lru' arg to __lru_cache_add is still there and is
rather misleading (I find it maddening ;)).  AIUI, it's just there as
the means by which the __lru_cache_add() caller tells the LRU manager
that the caller wishes this page to start life on the active LRU, yes? 
It doesn't _really_ specify an LRU list at all.

In which case I think it would be a heck of a lot clearer if the
callers were to do

	SetPageActve(page);
	__lru_cache_add(page);

no?  (Or __lru_cache_add_active(page) and
__lru_cache_add_inactive(page) if one prefers).

Ditto lru_cache_add_lru() and probably other things.  Let's have one
way of communicating activeness, not two.


--
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/