Re: page fault scalability patch V12 [0/7]: Overview andperformance tests
From: Andrew Morton
Date: Fri Dec 10 2004 - 19:15:46 EST
Hugh Dickins <hugh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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?
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/