Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 8 Aug 2008 11:22:29 +0200 | From | "Francis Moreau" <> | Subject | Re: question about do_anonymous_page() |
| |
On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 10:51 AM, Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com> wrote: >> Is it simply because lru_add_active() doesn't exist ? > > Yes. >
great at least one thing I understood from the kernel mm internals ;)
> It just happens that whoever (Rik?) originally named that function was > primarily thinking of the page cache at the time; or perhaps wasn't > thinking of the file page cache at all, just regarding all the pages > we put on that list as cached in some sense. >
I think it might be the second reason since the page is not directly added to the LRU but to a pagevec structure since the term 'cache'. But IMHO if so, it's just confusing and lru_cache_add_active() shouldn't contain implemantation details in its name.
> You're right that it's a little anomalous, but nothing to worry about.
well, it's just that I got confusing when reading the code for the first time. I really have hard time to understand it...
> I get more bothered by page_cache_get(), which is and always(?) has > been the same thing as get_page(): sometimes we use one, sometimes > the other, and often we use page_cache_get() on anonymous pages. >
Yes and this is what confused me: lru_cache_add_active() does call page_cache_get() for anymous pages, hence my question.
Thanks ! -- Francis
| |