Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 27 Jan 2008 21:33:12 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] remove duplicating priority setting in try_to_free_p |
| |
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)
I think this is actually a bugfix. The code you're removing doesn't do the
if (priority < zone->prev_priority)
thing.
otoh with this change, the only thing which will cause prev_priority to increase (ie: lower priority) is kswapd, which seems odd.
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.
| |