Re: [PATCH 3/7 v2] mm: rework __isolate_lru_page() file/anon filter

[Konstantin Khlebnikov]

Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Mar 2012, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> > Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> > > No, for non-lumpy isolation we don't need this check at all,
> > > because all pages already picked from right lru list.
> > >
> > > I'll send separate patch for this (on top v5 patchset), after meditation =)
> >
> > Heh, looks like we don't need these checks at all:
> > without RECLAIM_MODE_LUMPYRECLAIM we isolate only pages from right lru,
> > with RECLAIM_MODE_LUMPYRECLAIM we isolate pages from all evictable lru.
> > Thus we should check only PageUnevictable() on lumpy reclaim.
>
> Yes, those were great simplfying insights: I'm puzzling over why you
> didn't follow through on them in your otherwise nice 4.5/7, which
> still involves lru bits in the isolate mode?

Actually filter is required for single case: lumpy isolation for shrink_active_list().
Maybe I'm wrong, or this is bug, but I don't see any reasons why this can not happen:
sc->reclaim_mode manipulations are very tricky.

> Hugh
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
> the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx  For more info on Linux MM,
> see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
> Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
> Don't email:<a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";>  email@xxxxxxxxx</a>

--
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/