On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 02:55:13PM +0800, Chen Gang wrote: > > 'lru' may be used without initialized, so need regressing part of the > related patch. > > The related patch: > "3abf380 mm: remove lru parameter from __lru_cache_add and lru_cache_add_lru" > > > Signed-off-by: Chen Gang <gang.chen@xxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > mm/vmscan.c | 1 + > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c > index fe73724..e92b1858 100644 > --- a/mm/vmscan.c > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c > @@ -595,6 +595,7 @@ redo: > * unevictable page on [in]active list. > * We know how to handle that. > */ > + lru = !!TestClearPageActive(page) + page_lru_base_type(page); > lru_cache_add(page); Thanks for catching this but I have one question. Why are you clearing the active bit? Before 3abf380 we did active = TestClearPageActive(page); lru = active + page_lru_base_type(page); lru_cache_add_lru(page, lru); so if the page was active before then it gets added to the active list. When 3abf380 is applied. it becomes. Leave PageActive alone lru_cache_add(page); ..... until __pagevec_lru_add -> __pagevec_lru_add_fn int file = page_is_file_cache(page); int active = PageActive(page); enum lru_list lru = page_lru(page); After your patch it's Clear PageActive lru_cache_add(page) ....... always add to inactive list I do not think you intended to do this and if you did, it deserves far more comment than being a compile warning fix. In putback_lru_page we only care about whether the lru was unevictable or not. Hence I think what you meant to do was simply lru = page_lru_base_type(page); If you agree then can you resend a revised version to Andrew please? -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs -- 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>