[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170314073416.GA29720@bbox>
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 16:34:16 +0900
From: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
To: Hillf Danton <hillf.zj@...baba-inc.com>
CC: 'Andrew Morton' <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
<kernel-team@....com>, 'Johannes Weiner' <hannes@...xchg.org>,
'Michal Hocko' <mhocko@...e.com>,
"'Kirill A. Shutemov'" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
'Anshuman Khandual' <khandual@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 02/10] mm: remove SWAP_DIRTY in ttu
Hello Hillf,
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 02:34:37PM +0800, Hillf Danton wrote:
>
> On March 13, 2017 8:36 AM Minchan Kim wrote:
> >
> > If we found lazyfree page is dirty, try_to_unmap_one can just
> > SetPageSwapBakced in there like PG_mlocked page and just return
> > with SWAP_FAIL which is very natural because the page is not
> > swappable right now so that vmscan can activate it.
> > There is no point to introduce new return value SWAP_DIRTY
> > in ttu at the moment.
> >
> > Acked-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
> > ---
> Acked-by: Hillf Danton <hillf.zj@...baba-inc.com>
>
> > include/linux/rmap.h | 1 -
> > mm/rmap.c | 6 +++---
> > mm/vmscan.c | 3 ---
> > 3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/rmap.h b/include/linux/rmap.h
> > index fee10d7..b556eef 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/rmap.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/rmap.h
> > @@ -298,6 +298,5 @@ static inline int page_mkclean(struct page *page)
> > #define SWAP_AGAIN 1
> > #define SWAP_FAIL 2
> > #define SWAP_MLOCK 3
> > -#define SWAP_DIRTY 4
> >
> > #endif /* _LINUX_RMAP_H */
> > diff --git a/mm/rmap.c b/mm/rmap.c
> > index 9dbfa6f..d47af09 100644
> > --- a/mm/rmap.c
> > +++ b/mm/rmap.c
> > @@ -1414,7 +1414,7 @@ static int try_to_unmap_one(struct page *page, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > */
> > if (unlikely(PageSwapBacked(page) != PageSwapCache(page))) {
> > WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
> > - ret = SWAP_FAIL;
> > + ret = false;
> Nit:
> Hm looks like stray merge.
> Not sure it's really needed.
rebase fail ;-O
Thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists