On 06/03/2013 10:01 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
>> > +static int __remove_mapping_batch(struct list_head *remove_list,
>> > + struct list_head *ret_pages,
>> > + struct list_head *free_pages)
>> > +{
>> > + int nr_reclaimed = 0;
>> > + struct address_space *mapping;
>> > + struct page *page;
>> > + LIST_HEAD(need_free_mapping);
>> > +
>> > + while (!list_empty(remove_list)) {
...
>> > + if (!__remove_mapping(mapping, page)) {
>> > + unlock_page(page);
>> > + list_add(&page->lru, ret_pages);
>> > + continue;
>> > + }
>> > + list_add(&page->lru, &need_free_mapping);
...
> + spin_unlock_irq(&mapping->tree_lock);
> + while (!list_empty(&need_free_mapping)) {...
> + list_move(&page->list, free_pages);
> + mapping_release_page(mapping, page);
> + }
> Why do we need new lru list instead of using @free_pages?
I actually tried using @free_pages at first. The problem is that we
need to call mapping_release_page() without the radix tree lock held so
we can not do it in the first while() loop.
'free_pages' is a list created up in shrink_page_list(). There can be
several calls to __remove_mapping_batch() for each call to
shrink_page_list().
'need_free_mapping' lets us temporarily differentiate the pages that we
need to call mapping_release_page()/unlock_page() on versus the ones on
'free_pages' which have already had that done.
We could theoretically delay _all_ of the
release_mapping_page()/unlock_page() operations until the _entire_
shrink_page_list() operation is done, but doing this really helps with
lock_page() latency.
Does that make sense?
--
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>