On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 03:49:24PM +0100, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 02:29:10AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > Changelog since v3:
> > - Change function comments - suggested by Johannes
> > - Change function name - suggested by Johannes
> > - add only dirty/writeback pages to deactive pagevec
>
> Why the extra check?
>
> > @@ -359,8 +360,16 @@ unsigned long invalidate_mapping_pages(struct address_space *mapping,
> > if (lock_failed)
> > continue;
> >
> > - ret += invalidate_inode_page(page);
> > -
> > + ret = invalidate_inode_page(page);
> > + /*
> > + * If the page is dirty or under writeback, we can not
> > + * invalidate it now. But we assume that attempted
> > + * invalidation is a hint that the page is no longer
> > + * of interest and try to speed up its reclaim.
> > + */
> > + if (!ret && (PageDirty(page) || PageWriteback(page)))
> > + deactivate_page(page);
>
> The writeback completion handler does not take the page lock, so you
> can still miss pages that finish writeback before this test, no?
Yes. but I think it's rare and even though it happens, it's not critical.
>
> Can you explain why you felt the need to add these checks?
invalidate_inode_page can return 0 although the pages is !{dirty|writeback}.
Look invalidate_complete_page. As easiest example, if the page has buffer and
try_to_release_page can't release the buffer, it could return 0.
I want to check this.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Hannes
--
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=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>