On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 11:02:56PM +0800, Minchan Kim wrote:
>> fe3cba17 added ClearPageReclaim into clear_page_dirty_for_io for
>> preventing fast reclaiming readahead marker page.
>>
>> In this series, PG_reclaim is used by invalidated page, too.
>> If VM find the page is invalidated and it's dirty, it sets PG_reclaim
>> to reclaim asap. Then, when the dirty page will be writeback,
>> clear_page_dirty_for_io will clear PG_reclaim unconditionally.
>> It disturbs this serie's goal.
>>
>> I think it's okay to clear PG_readahead when the page is dirty, not
>> writeback time. So this patch moves ClearPageReadahead.
>> This patch needs Wu's opinion.
>
> It's a safe change. The possibility and consequence of races are both
> small enough. However the patch could be simplified as follows?
If all of file systems use it, I don't mind it.
Do all of filesystems use it when the page is dirtied?
I was not sure it.(It's why I added Cc. :)
If it doesn't have a problem, I hope so.
Thanks, Wu.
>
> Thanks,
> Fengguang
> ---
>
> --- linux-next.orig/mm/page-writeback.c 2010-11-29 15:14:54.000000000 +0800
> +++ linux-next/mm/page-writeback.c 2010-11-29 15:15:02.000000000 +0800
> @@ -1330,6 +1330,7 @@ int set_page_dirty(struct page *page)
> {
> struct address_space *mapping = page_mapping(page);
>
> + ClearPageReclaim(page);
> if (likely(mapping)) {
> int (*spd)(struct page *) = mapping->a_ops->set_page_dirty;
> #ifdef CONFIG_BLOCK
> @@ -1387,7 +1388,6 @@ int clear_page_dirty_for_io(struct page
>
> BUG_ON(!PageLocked(page));
>
> - ClearPageReclaim(page);
> if (mapping && mapping_cap_account_dirty(mapping)) {
> /*
> * Yes, Virginia, this is indeed insane.
>
--
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