On Mon, 2016-06-06 at 18:15 -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 05:56:09PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 2016-06-06 at 15:48 -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > +void lru_cache_putback(struct page *page)
> > > +{
> > > + struct pagevec *pvec = &get_cpu_var(lru_putback_pvec);
> > > +
> > > + get_page(page);
> > > + if (!pagevec_space(pvec))
> > > + __pagevec_lru_add(pvec, false);
> > > + pagevec_add(pvec, page);
> > > + put_cpu_var(lru_putback_pvec);
> > > +}
> > >
> > Wait a moment.
> >
> > So now we have a putback_lru_page, which does adjust
> > the statistics, and an lru_cache_putback which does
> > not?
> >
> > This function could use a name that is not as similar
> > to its counterpart :)
> lru_cache_add() and lru_cache_putback() are the two sibling
> functions,
> where the first influences the LRU balance and the second one
> doesn't.
>
> The last hunk in the patch (obscured by showing the label instead of
> the function name as context) updates putback_lru_page() from using
> lru_cache_add() to using lru_cache_putback().
>
> Does that make sense?That means the page reclaim does not update the "rotated" statistics. That seems undesirable, no? Am I overlooking something? -- All Rights Reversed.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
