On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 02:39:38PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 09:29:22AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 09:44:45AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > There should be no references to it any more and a parallel mark should > > > not be reordered against us. Use non-locked varient to clear page active. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > mm/swap.c | 2 +- > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/mm/swap.c b/mm/swap.c > > > index f2228b7..7a5bdd7 100644 > > > --- a/mm/swap.c > > > +++ b/mm/swap.c > > > @@ -854,7 +854,7 @@ void release_pages(struct page **pages, int nr, bool cold) > > > } > > > > > > /* Clear Active bit in case of parallel mark_page_accessed */ > > > - ClearPageActive(page); > > > + __ClearPageActive(page); > > > > Shouldn't this comment be removed also? > > Why? We're still clearing the active bit. Ah, I was just confused by the "parallel mark_page_accessed" part. It means parallel to release_pages(), but before the put_page_testzero(), not parallel to the active bit clearing. -- 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>