Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 15 Mar 2012 10:03:49 +0400 | From | Konstantin Khlebnikov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/7 v2] mm: rework __isolate_lru_page() file/anon filter |
| |
Hugh Dickins wrote: > On Sat, 10 Mar 2012, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote: >> Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote: >>> >>> No, for non-lumpy isolation we don't need this check at all, >>> because all pages already picked from right lru list. >>> >>> I'll send separate patch for this (on top v5 patchset), after meditation =) >> >> Heh, looks like we don't need these checks at all: >> without RECLAIM_MODE_LUMPYRECLAIM we isolate only pages from right lru, >> with RECLAIM_MODE_LUMPYRECLAIM we isolate pages from all evictable lru. >> Thus we should check only PageUnevictable() on lumpy reclaim. > > Yes, those were great simplfying insights: I'm puzzling over why you > didn't follow through on them in your otherwise nice 4.5/7, which > still involves lru bits in the isolate mode?
Actually filter is required for single case: lumpy isolation for shrink_active_list(). Maybe I'm wrong, or this is bug, but I don't see any reasons why this can not happen: sc->reclaim_mode manipulations are very tricky.
> > Hugh > > -- > To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in > the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, > see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . > Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ > Don't email:<a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org</a>
| |