| Date | Tue, 04 Mar 2008 19:46:04 +0900 | From | KOSAKI Motohiro <> | Subject | Re: [patch 12/21] No Reclaim LRU Infrastructure |
| |
Hi
sorry for late review.
> > Index: linux-2.6.25-rc2-mm1/mm/Kconfig > =================================================================== > --- linux-2.6.25-rc2-mm1.orig/mm/Kconfig 2008-02-19 16:23:09.000000000 -0500 > +++ linux-2.6.25-rc2-mm1/mm/Kconfig 2008-02-28 11:05:04.000000000 -0500 > @@ -193,3 +193,13 @@ config NR_QUICK > config VIRT_TO_BUS > def_bool y > depends on !ARCH_NO_VIRT_TO_BUS > + > +config NORECLAIM > + bool "Track non-reclaimable pages (EXPERIMENTAL; 64BIT only)" > + depends on EXPERIMENTAL && 64BIT
as far as I remembered, somebody said CONFIG_NORECLAIM is easy confusable. may be..
IMHO insert "lru" word is better. example,
config NORECLAIM_LRU bool "Zone LRU of track non-reclaimable pages (EXPERIMENTAL; 64BIT only)" depends on EXPERIMENTAL && 64BIT
> @@ -356,8 +380,10 @@ void release_pages(struct page **pages, > zone = pagezone; > spin_lock_irqsave(&zone->lru_lock, flags); > } > - VM_BUG_ON(!PageLRU(page)); > - __ClearPageLRU(page); > + is_lru_page = PageLRU(page); > + VM_BUG_ON(!(is_lru_page)); > + if (is_lru_page) > + __ClearPageLRU(page); > del_page_from_lru(zone, page); > }
it seems unnecessary change??
|