On Mon, 13 May 2013 11:21:22 +0100 Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Now that the LRU to add a page to is decided at LRU-add time, remove the > misleading lru parameter from __pagevec_lru_add. A consequence of this is > that the pagevec_lru_add_file, pagevec_lru_add_anon and similar helpers > are misleading as the caller no longer has direct control over what LRU > the page is added to. Unused helpers are removed by this patch and existing > users of pagevec_lru_add_file() are converted to use lru_cache_add_file() > directly and use the per-cpu pagevecs instead of creating their own pagevec. Well maybe. The `lru' arg to __lru_cache_add is still there and is rather misleading (I find it maddening ;)). AIUI, it's just there as the means by which the __lru_cache_add() caller tells the LRU manager that the caller wishes this page to start life on the active LRU, yes? It doesn't _really_ specify an LRU list at all. In which case I think it would be a heck of a lot clearer if the callers were to do SetPageActve(page); __lru_cache_add(page); no? (Or __lru_cache_add_active(page) and __lru_cache_add_inactive(page) if one prefers). Ditto lru_cache_add_lru() and probably other things. Let's have one way of communicating activeness, not two. -- 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/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>