Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 28 Jan 2008 15:43:56 +0900 | From | "minchan kim" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] remove duplicating priority setting in try_to_free_p |
| |
On Jan 28, 2008 2:33 PM, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > > On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 02:29:23 -0500 "minchan kim" <minchan.kim@gmail.com> wrote: > > > shrink_zones in try_to_free_pages already set zone through > > note_zone_scanning_priority. > > So, setting prev_priority in try_to_free_pages is needless. > > > > This patch is made by 2.6.24-rc8. > > > > Signed-off-by: barrios <minchan.kim@gmail.com> > > --- > > mm/vmscan.c | 17 ----------------- > > 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c > > index e5a9597..fc55c23 100644 > > --- a/mm/vmscan.c > > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c > > @@ -1273,23 +1273,6 @@ unsigned long try_to_free_pages(struct z > > if (!sc.all_unreclaimable) > > ret = 1; > > out: > > - /* > > - * Now that we've scanned all the zones at this priority level, note > > - * that level within the zone so that the next thread which performs > > - * scanning of this zone will immediately start out at this priority > > - * level. This affects only the decision whether or not to bring > > - * mapped pages onto the inactive list. > > - */ > > - if (priority < 0) > > - priority = 0; > > - for (i = 0; zones[i] != NULL; i++) { > > - struct zone *zone = zones[i]; > > - > > - if (!cpuset_zone_allowed_hardwall(zone, GFP_KERNEL)) > > - continue; > > - > > - zone->prev_priority = priority; > > - } > > return ret; > > } > > (your mail client is replacing tabs with spaces)
Thank for your kindness.
> I think this is actually a bugfix. The code you're removing doesn't do the > > if (priority < zone->prev_priority) > > thing. >
shrink_zones() in try_to_free_pages() already called note_zone_scanning_priority(). So, it have done it.
> otoh with this change, the only thing which will cause prev_priority to > increase (ie: lower priority) is kswapd, which seems odd. >
So, There is not only kswapd but also direct page reclaim.
> So: > > a) this is a functional change and needs more thought and lots of runtime > testing. I'll duck it for now. > > b) the prev_priority stuff is still screwed up. >
-- Kinds regards, barrios
| |