On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 10:19:24PM -0700, Yang Shi wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 9:04 PM Yu Zhao <yuzhao@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > lru_cache_add_active_or_unevictable() already adds new ksm pages to
> > active lru. Calling activate_page() isn't really necessary in this
> > case.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > mm/swapfile.c | 10 +++++-----
> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/swapfile.c b/mm/swapfile.c
> > index 6c26916e95fd..cf115ea26a20 100644
> > --- a/mm/swapfile.c
> > +++ b/mm/swapfile.c
> > @@ -1913,16 +1913,16 @@ static int unuse_pte(struct vm_area_struct *vma, pmd_t *pmd,
> > pte_mkold(mk_pte(page, vma->vm_page_prot)));
> > if (page == swapcache) {
> > page_add_anon_rmap(page, vma, addr, false);
> > + /*
> > + * Move the page to the active list so it is not
> > + * immediately swapped out again after swapon.
> > + */
> > + activate_page(page);
>
> Actually I think we could just remove this activate_page() call with
> Joonsoo's anonymous page workingset series merged. The active bit will
> be taken care by workingset_refault().
>
> > } else { /* ksm created a completely new copy */
> > page_add_new_anon_rmap(page, vma, addr, false);
> > lru_cache_add_active_or_unevictable(page, vma);
>
> And it looks the latest linus's tree already changed this to
> lru_cache_add_inactive_or_unevictable() by commit b518154e59
> ("mm/vmscan: protect the workingset on anonymous LRU")
Oops, apparently my tree is out of date. I'll work on a new version
that removes the superfluous activate_page(). Meanwhile, can you
please take a look at the rest of this series and let me know if
there is anything else that we might want to change? Thank you.
