[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130604233229.GB31006@blaptop>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 08:32:29 +0900
From: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
To: Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mgorman@...e.de,
tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [v5][PATCH 5/6] mm: vmscan: batch shrink_page_list() locking
operations
On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 08:29:18AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 06/03/2013 11:02 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> >> > Why do we need new lru list instead of using @free_pages?
> > I got your point that @free_pages could have freed page by
> > put_page_testzero of shrink_page_list and they don't have
> > valid mapping so __remove_mapping_batch's mapping_release_page
> > would access NULL pointer.
> >
> > I think it would be better to mention it in comment. :(
> > Otherwise, I suggest we can declare another new LIST_HEAD to
> > accumulate pages freed by put_page_testzero in shrink_page_list
> > so __remove_mapping_batch don't have to declare temporal LRU list
> > and can remove unnecessary list_move operation.
>
> If I respin them again, I'll add a comment.
Thanks. it's enough for me.
>
> I guess we could splice the whole list over at once instead of moving
> the pages individually. But, what are we trying to optimize here?
> Saving a list_head worth of space on the stack?
Never mind. At first, I thought we can simply use @free_pages instead of
redundant new LRU list and it's *minor*. That's why I already gave
my Reviewed-by. But you woke up my brain so I realized it so I don't have
a concern any more about your patch.
Thanks.
--
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
--
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