Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 27 Apr 2011 17:12:19 +0900 | Subject | Re: [RFC 1/8] Only isolate page we can handle | From | Minchan Kim <> |
| |
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 4:54 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote: > On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 01:25:18 +0900 > Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com> wrote: > >> There are some places to isolate lru page and I believe >> users of isolate_lru_page will be growing. >> The purpose of them is each different so part of isolated pages >> should put back to LRU, again. >> >> The problem is when we put back the page into LRU, >> we lose LRU ordering and the page is inserted at head of LRU list. >> It makes unnecessary LRU churning so that vm can evict working set pages >> rather than idle pages. >> >> This patch adds new filter mask when we isolate page in LRU. >> So, we don't isolate pages if we can't handle it. >> It could reduce LRU churning. >> >> This patch shouldn't change old behavior. >> It's just used by next patches. >> >> Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com> >> Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> >> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> >> Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com> >> Signed-off-by: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com> > > Reviewed-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> > > nitpick below. > >> --- >> include/linux/swap.h | 3 ++- >> mm/compaction.c | 2 +- >> mm/memcontrol.c | 2 +- >> mm/vmscan.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++------ >> 4 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/include/linux/swap.h b/include/linux/swap.h >> index 384eb5f..baef4ad 100644 >> --- a/include/linux/swap.h >> +++ b/include/linux/swap.h >> @@ -259,7 +259,8 @@ extern unsigned long mem_cgroup_shrink_node_zone(struct mem_cgroup *mem, >> unsigned int swappiness, >> struct zone *zone, >> unsigned long *nr_scanned); >> -extern int __isolate_lru_page(struct page *page, int mode, int file); >> +extern int __isolate_lru_page(struct page *page, int mode, int file, >> + int not_dirty, int not_mapped); > > Hmm, which is better to use 4 binary args or a flag with bitmask ?
Yes. Even I added new flags one more in next patch. So I try to use bitmask flag in next version. Thanks.
> > Thanks, > -Kame > >
-- Kind regards, Minchan Kim -- 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/
| |