On 03/14/2013 10:50 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > active/inactive lru lists can contain unevicable pages (i.e. ramfs pages > that have been placed on the LRU lists when first allocated), but these > pages must not have PageUnevictable set - otherwise shrink_active_list > goes crazy: ... > For lru_add_page_tail(), it means we should not set PageUnevictable() > for tail pages unless we're sure that it will go to LRU_UNEVICTABLE. > The tail page will go LRU_UNEVICTABLE if head page is not on LRU or if > it's marked PageUnevictable() too. This is only an issue once you're using lru_add_page_tail() for non-anonymous pages, right? > diff --git a/mm/swap.c b/mm/swap.c > index 92a9be5..31584d0 100644 > --- a/mm/swap.c > +++ b/mm/swap.c > @@ -762,7 +762,8 @@ void lru_add_page_tail(struct page *page, struct page *page_tail, > lru = LRU_INACTIVE_ANON; > } > } else { > - SetPageUnevictable(page_tail); > + if (!PageLRU(page) || PageUnevictable(page)) > + SetPageUnevictable(page_tail); > lru = LRU_UNEVICTABLE; > } You were saying above that ramfs pages can get on the normal active/inactive lists. But, this will end up getting them on the unevictable list, right? So, we have normal ramfs pages on the active/inactive lists, but ramfs pages after a huge-page-split on the unevictable list. That seems a bit inconsistent. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html