lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Mar]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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>



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-03-15 07:07    [W:0.140 / U:0.012 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site