On 3/31/10, KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 2010/3/31 Bob Liu <lliubbo@xxxxxxxxx>: >> From: Bob Liu <lliubbo@xxxxxxxxx> >> >> Whether mode is ISOLATE_BOTH or not, we should compare >> page_is_file_cache with argument file. >> >> And there is no more need not when checking the active state. >> >> Signed-off-by: Bob Liu <lliubbo@xxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> mm/vmscan.c | 9 ++------- >> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c >> index e0e5f15..34d7e3d 100644 >> --- a/mm/vmscan.c >> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c >> @@ -862,15 +862,10 @@ int __isolate_lru_page(struct page *page, int mode, >> int file) >> if (!PageLRU(page)) >> return ret; >> >> - /* >> - * When checking the active state, we need to be sure we are >> - * dealing with comparible boolean values. Take the logical not >> - * of each. >> - */ >> - if (mode != ISOLATE_BOTH && (!PageActive(page) != !mode)) >> + if (mode != ISOLATE_BOTH && (PageActive(page) != mode)) >> return ret; > > no. please read the comment. > Hm,. I have read it, but still miss it :-). PageActive(page) will return an int 0 or 1, mode is also int 0 or 1( already != ISOLATE_BOTH). There are comparible and why must to be sure to boolean values? >> - if (mode != ISOLATE_BOTH && page_is_file_cache(page) != file) >> + if (page_is_file_cache(page) != file) >> return ret; > > no. please consider lumpy reclaim. > During lumpy reclaim mode is ISOLATE_BOTH, that case we don't check page_is_file_cache() ? Would you please explain it a little more ,i am still unclear about it. Thanks a lot. -- Regards, --Bob -- 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/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>