On Tue, 31 Mar 2015 13:45:25 +0900 Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > deactivate_page() doesn't look at or alter PageReferenced(). Should it? > > Absolutely true. Thanks. > Here it goes. > > >From 2b2c92eb73a1cceac615b9abd4c0f5f0c3395ff5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 13:38:46 +0900 > Subject: [PATCH] mm: lru_deactivate_fn should clear PG_referenced > > deactivate_page aims for accelerate for reclaiming through > moving pages from active list to inactive list so we should > clear PG_referenced for the goal. > > ... > > --- a/mm/swap.c > +++ b/mm/swap.c > @@ -800,6 +800,7 @@ static void lru_deactivate_fn(struct page *page, struct lruvec *lruvec, > > del_page_from_lru_list(page, lruvec, lru + LRU_ACTIVE); > ClearPageActive(page); > + ClearPageReferenced(page); > add_page_to_lru_list(page, lruvec, lru); > > __count_vm_event(PGDEACTIVATE); What if we have PageLRU(page) && !PageActive(page) && PageReferenced(page) if we really want to "accelerate the reclaim of @page" then we should clear PG_referenced there too. (And what about page_referenced(page) :)) -- 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>