On 28.12.2016 18:00, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 28-12-16 17:50:31, Nikolay Borisov wrote: >> >> >> On 28.12.2016 17:30, Michal Hocko wrote: >>> From: Michal Hocko <[email protected]> >>> >>> mm_vmscan_lru_isolate currently prints only whether the LRU we isolate >>> from is file or anonymous but we do not know which LRU this is. It is >>> useful to know whether the list is file or anonymous as well. Change >> >> Maybe you wanted to say whether the list is ACTIVE/INACTIVE ? > > You are right. I will update the wording to: > " > mm_vmscan_lru_isolate currently prints only whether the LRU we isolate > from is file or anonymous but we do not know which LRU this is. It is > useful to know whether the list is active or inactive as well as we > use the same function to isolate pages for both of them. Change > the tracepoint to show symbolic names of the lru rather. > " > > Does it sound better?
It's better. Just one more nit about the " as well as we use the same function to isolate pages for both of them" I think this can be reworded better. The way I understand is - it's better to know whether it's active/inactive since we are using the same function to do both, correct? If so then then perhaps the following is a bit more clear: " It is useful to know whether the list is active or inactive, since we are using the same function to isolate pages from both of them and it's hard to distinguish otherwise. " But as I said - it's a minor nit. > > Thanks! >
