Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 10 Dec 2004 16:18:35 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: page fault scalability patch V12 [0/7]: Overview and performance tests |
| |
Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com> wrote: > > On Fri, 10 Dec 2004, Andrew Morton wrote: > > Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > (I do wonder why do_anonymous_page calls mark_page_accessed as well as > > > > > lru_cache_add_active. The other instances of lru_cache_add_active for > > > > > an anonymous page don't mark_page_accessed i.e. SetPageReferenced too, > > > > > why here? But that's nothing new with your patch, and although you've > > > > > reordered the calls, the final page state is the same as before.) > > > > The point is a good one - I guess that code is a holdover from earlier > > implementations. > > > > This is equivalent, no? > > Yes, it is equivalent to use SetPageReferenced(page) there instead. > But why is do_anonymous_page adding anything to lru_cache_add_active, > when its other callers leave it at that? What's special about the > do_anonymous_page case?
do_swap_page() is effectively doing the same as do_anonymous_page(). do_wp_page() and do_no_page() appear to be errant. - 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/
| |