On Fri, 21 May 2010, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > > Acked-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Thanks - though I don't quite agree with your description: I can't > > see why the lru_cache_add_active_anon() was ever justified - that > > "active" came in along with the separate anon and file LRU lists. > > If you have any worry, can you please share it? I'll test such workload > and fix the issue if necessary. You are expert than me in this area. ?? I've acked the patch: my worry is only with the detail of your comments on the history - in my view it was always wrong to put on the active LRU there, and I'm glad that you have now fixed it. If you really want to test some workload on 2.6.28 to see if it too works better with your fix, I won't stop you - but I'd much prefer you to be applying your mind to 2.6.35 and 2.6.36! Hugh -- 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>