Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Mon, 26 Aug 2002 16:58:51 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: MM patches against 2.5.31 |
| |
Ed Tomlinson wrote: > > This seems to have been missed:
Still thinking about it.
> Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > In article <3D6989F7.9ED1948A@zip.com.au>, > > Andrew Morton <akpm@zip.com.au> wrote: > >> > >>What I'm inclined to do there is to change __page_cache_release() > >>to not attempt to free the page at all. Just let it sit on the > >>LRU until page reclaim encounters it. With the anon-free-via-pagevec > >>patch, very, very, very few pages actually get their final release in > >>__page_cache_release() - zero on uniprocessor, I expect. > > > > If you do this, then I would personally suggest a conceptually different > > approach: make the LRU list count towards the page count. That will > > _automatically_ result in what you describe - if a page is on the LRU > > list, then "freeing" it will always just decrement the count, and the > > _real_ free comes from walking the LRU list and considering count==1 to > > be trivially freeable. > > > > That way you don't have to have separate functions for releasing > > different kinds of pages (we've seen how nasty that was from a > > maintainance standpoint already with the "put_page vs > > page_cache_release" thing). > > > > Ehh? > > If every structure locks before removing its reference (ie before testing and/or > removing a lru reference we take zone->lru_lock, for slabs take cachep->spinlock > etc) Its a bit of an audit task to make sure the various locks are taken (and > documented) though. > > By leting the actual free be lazy as Linus suggests things should simplify nicely.
Well we wouldn't want to leave tons of free pages on the LRU - the VM would needlessly reclaim pagecache before finding the free pages. And higher-order page allocations could suffer.
If we go for explicit lru removal in truncate and zap_pte_range then this approach may be best. Still thinking about it. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |