Hi Hugh, On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 10:02:28PM -0700, 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. > > 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. I have a stupid question. I'm not sure whether there is reduplication to put both "page" and "zone" parameter in mem_cgroup_page_lruvec(), for I noticed that the "struct zone *zone" parameter are usually from page_zone(page) in most cases. I think that the semantics of this function is to grab the lruvec the page belongs to. So will it be ok if we pass only "page" as the parameter, which I think would be cleaner? Please fix me if I missed something. Thanks Baozi > > 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> -- 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>