On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 15:32:06 -0800 (PST) Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Go further: pass lruvec instead of zone to add_page_to_lru_list() and > del_page_from_lru_list(); and pagevec_lru_move_fn() pass lruvec down > to its target functions. > > This cleanup eliminates a swathe of cruft in memcontrol.c, > including mem_cgroup_lru_add_list(), mem_cgroup_lru_del_list() and > mem_cgroup_lru_move_lists(), which never actually touched the lists. > > In their place, mem_cgroup_page_lruvec() to decide the lruvec, > previously a side-effect of add, and mem_cgroup_update_lru_size() > to maintain the lru_size stats. > > Whilst these are simplifications in their own right, the goal is to > bring the evaluation of lruvec next to the spin_locking of the lrus, > in preparation for the next patch. > > Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx> Hmm.. a nitpick. You do lruvec = mem_cgroup_page_lruvec(page, zone); What is the difference from lruvec = mem_cgroup_page_lruvec(page, page_zone(page)) ? If we have a function lruvec = mem_cgroup_page_lruvec(page) Do we need lruvec = mem_cgroup_page_lruvec_zone(page, zone) ? Thanks, -Kame -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>