On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 1:29 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, 22 Dec 2022 12:44:35 -0700 Yu Zhao <yuzhao@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 11:49 AM Andrew Morton > > <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 21 Dec 2022 22:13:40 -0800 Yuanchu Xie <yuanchu@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > From: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > This works; suggested-by probably works even better, since I didn't do > > the follow-up work. > > > > > > Currently in vm_flags in vm_area_struct, both VM_SEQ_READ and > > > > VM_RAND_READ indicate a lack of locality in accesses to the vma. Some > > > > places that check for locality are missing one of them. We add > > > > vma_has_locality to replace the existing locality checks for clarity. > > > > > > I'm all confused. Surely VM_SEQ_READ implies locality and VM_RAND_READ > > > indicates no-locality? > > > > Spatially, yes. But we focus more on the temporal criteria here, i.e., > > the reuse of an area within a relatively small duration. Both the > > active/inactive LRU and MGLRU rely on this. > > Oh. Why didn't it say that ;) > > How about s/locality/recency/g? Thanks. I've done this, and posted the v2 which includes much better commit messages.
