Re: [RFC 3/7] shrink_page_list: Support isolating dirty pages on laundry list

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Mel Gorman
Date: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - 8:04 am

On (20/08/07 14:50), Christoph Lameter didst pronounce:

This needs a comment to explain why shrink_page_list() would be called
with an empty list.


This needs explanation in the leader. It implies that later you expect active
and inactive pages to be passed to shrink_page. i.e. We now need to keep an
eye out for where shrink_active_list() is sending pages to shrink_page_list()
instead of simply rotating the active list to the inactive.


This needs a comment. What you are doing is explained in the leader but
it may not help a future reader of the code.

Also, with laundry specified there is no longer a check for PagePrivate
to see if the buffers can be freed and got rid of. According to the
comments in the next code block;

                 * We do this even if the page is PageDirty().
                 * try_to_release_page() does not perform I/O, but it is
                 * possible for a page to have PageDirty set, but it is actually
                 * clean (all its buffers are clean)

Is this intentional?


-- 
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student                          Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick                         IBM Dublin Software Lab
-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[RFC 3/7] shrink_page_list: Support isolating dirty pages ..., Christoph Lameter, (Mon Aug 20, 2:50 pm)
Re: [RFC 3/7] shrink_page_list: Support isolating dirty pa ..., Mel Gorman, (Tue Aug 21, 8:04 am)
Re: [RFC 3/7] shrink_page_list: Support isolating dirty pa ..., Christoph Lameter, (Tue Aug 21, 1:53 pm)