Wu Fengguang wrote:
quoted text
> On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 05:09:55AM +0800, Jeff Dike wrote:
>> Side question -
>> 	Is there a good reason for this to be in shrink_active_list()
>> as opposed to __isolate_lru_page?
>>
>> 		if (unlikely(!page_evictable(page, NULL))) {
>> 			putback_lru_page(page);
>> 			continue;
>> 		}
>>
>> Maybe we want to minimize the amount of code under the lru lock or
>> avoid duplicate logic in the isolate_page functions.
> 
> I guess the quick test means to avoid the expensive page_referenced()
> call that follows it. But that should be mostly one shot cost - the
> unevictable pages are unlikely to cycle in active/inactive list again
> and again.

Please read what putback_lru_page does.

It moves the page onto the unevictable list, so that
it will not end up in this scan again.

quoted text
>> But if there are important mlock-heavy workloads, this could make the
>> scan come up empty, or at least emptier than we might like.
> 
> Yes, if the above 'if' block is removed, the inactive lists might get
> more expensive to reclaim.

Why?

-- 
All rights reversed.
--
unsubscribe notice
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/