Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [patch 12/21] No Reclaim LRU Infrastructure | From | Lee Schermerhorn <> | Date | Tue, 04 Mar 2008 10:05:58 -0500 |
| |
On Tue, 2008-03-04 at 19:46 +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > 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
OK. But, I'd suggest the 'bool' description be something like:
config NORECLAIM_LRU bool "Add LRU list to track non-reclaimable pages (EXPERIMENTAL; 64BIT only)"
> > > > @@ -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??
Hmmm. Not sure what I was thinking here. Might be a relic of some previous debug instrumentation. Guess I don't have any problem with removing this change.
Lee
| |