On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 2:01 PM, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 13:52:05 +0900 Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> +/* >> >> + * Function used to forecefully demote a page to the head of the inactive >> >> + * list. >> >> + */ >> > >> > This comment is wrong? __The page gets moved to the _tail_ of the >> > inactive list? >> >> No. I add it in _head_ of the inactive list intentionally. >> Why I don't add it to _tail_ is that I don't want to be aggressive. >> The page might be real working set. So I want to give a chance to >> activate it again. > > Well.. why? The user just tried to toss the page away altogether. If > the kernel wasn't able to do that immediately, the best it can do is to > toss the page away asap? > >> If it's not working set, it can be reclaimed easily and it can prevent >> active page demotion since inactive list size would be big enough for >> not calling shrink_active_list. > > What is "working set"? Mapped and unmapped pagecache, or are you > referring solely to mapped pagecache? I mean it's mapped by other processes. > > If it's mapped pagecache then the user was being a bit silly (or didn't > know that some other process had mapped the file). In which case we > need to decide what to do - leave the page alone, deactivate it, or > half-deactivate it as this patch does. What I want is the half-deactivate. Okay. We will use the result of invalidate_inode_page. If fail happens by page_mapped, we can do half-deactivate. But if fail happens by dirty(ex, writeback), we can add it to tail. Does it make sense? -- Kind regards, Minchan Kim -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/ Don't email: <a href