On Mon, 2016-06-06 at 18:15 -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote: > On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 05:56:09PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2016-06-06 at 15:48 -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > > > > > > > > +void lru_cache_putback(struct page *page) > > > +{ > > > + struct pagevec *pvec = &get_cpu_var(lru_putback_pvec); > > > + > > > + get_page(page); > > > + if (!pagevec_space(pvec)) > > > + __pagevec_lru_add(pvec, false); > > > + pagevec_add(pvec, page); > > > + put_cpu_var(lru_putback_pvec); > > > +} > > > > > Wait a moment. > > > > So now we have a putback_lru_page, which does adjust > > the statistics, and an lru_cache_putback which does > > not? > > > > This function could use a name that is not as similar > > to its counterpart :) > lru_cache_add() and lru_cache_putback() are the two sibling > functions, > where the first influences the LRU balance and the second one > doesn't. > > The last hunk in the patch (obscured by showing the label instead of > the function name as context) updates putback_lru_page() from using > lru_cache_add() to using lru_cache_putback(). > > Does that make sense? That means the page reclaim does not update the "rotated" statistics. That seems undesirable, no? Am I overlooking something? -- All Rights Reversed.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part