On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 02:53:48PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-07-21 at 17:28 +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > When direct reclaim encounters a dirty page, it gets recycled around
> > the LRU for another cycle. This patch marks the page PageReclaim
> > similar to deactivate_page() so that the page gets reclaimed almost
> > immediately after the page gets cleaned. This is to avoid reclaiming
> > clean pages that are younger than a dirty page encountered at the
> > end of the LRU that might have been something like a use-once page.
> >
>
> > @@ -834,7 +834,15 @@ static unsigned long shrink_page_list(struct list_head *page_list,
> > */
> > if (page_is_file_cache(page) &&
> > (!current_is_kswapd() || priority >= DEF_PRIORITY - 2)) {
> > - inc_zone_page_state(page, NR_VMSCAN_WRITE_SKIP);
> > + /*
> > + * Immediately reclaim when written back.
> > + * Similar in principal to deactivate_page()
> > + * except we already have the page isolated
> > + * and know it's dirty
> > + */
> > + inc_zone_page_state(page, NR_VMSCAN_INVALIDATE);
> > + SetPageReclaim(page);
> > +
>
> I find the invalidate name somewhat confusing. It makes me think we'll
> drop the page without writeback, like invalidatepage().
I wasn't that happy with it either to be honest but didn't think of a
better one at the time. nr_reclaim_deferred?
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
