[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140905102044.GG17501@suse.de>
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 11:20:44 +0100
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] mm: clean up zone flags
On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 06:26:53PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> From 2420ad16df0634e073ad327f0f72472d9b03762b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
> Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 10:14:36 -0400
> Subject: [patch] mm: clean up zone flags
>
> Page reclaim tests zone_is_reclaim_dirty(), but the site that actually
> sets this state does zone_set_flag(zone, ZONE_TAIL_LRU_DIRTY), sending
> the reader through layers indirection just to track down a simple bit.
>
> Remove all zone flag wrappers and just use bitops against zone->flags
> directly. It's just as readable and the lines are barely any longer.
>
> Also rename ZONE_TAIL_LRU_DIRTY to ZONE_DIRTY to match ZONE_WRITEBACK,
> and remove the zone_flags_t typedef.
>
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
> Acked-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
I would have gone with making them ZONE_TAIL_DIRTY and ZONE_TAIL_WRITEBACK
because to me it's clearer what the flag means. ZONE_DIRTY can be
interpreted as "the zone has dirty pages" which is not what reclaim
cares about, it cares about dirty pages at the tail of the LRU. However,
I don't feel strongly enough to make a big deal about it so
Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Thanks.
--
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