Re: page fault scalability patch V12 [0/7]: Overview and performance tests

From: Hugh Dickins
Date: Fri Dec 10 2004 - 18:54:57 EST

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Hugh Dickins <hugh@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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?


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at