On Sun 13-05-12 22:02:28, Hugh Dickins wrote: > Take lruvec further: pass it 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. Yes add_page_to_lru_list vs. mem_cgroup_lru_add_list and del variant were really confusing. > 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 a future patch. > > Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx> I like the patch but if Konstantin has a split up version of the same thing I would rather see that version first. > --- > The horror, the horror: I have three lines of 81 columns: > I do think they look better this way than split up. Agreed. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs SUSE LINUX s.r.o. Lihovarska 1060/12 190 00 Praha 9 Czech Republic -- 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>