From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261881AbULJXxN (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Dec 2004 18:53:13 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261876AbULJXxN (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Dec 2004 18:53:13 -0500 Received: from bay-bridge.veritas.com ([143.127.3.10]:31509 "EHLO MTVMIME03.enterprise.veritas.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261880AbULJXxB (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Dec 2004 18:53:01 -0500 Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 23:52:30 +0000 (GMT) From: Hugh Dickins X-X-Sender: hugh@localhost.localdomain To: Andrew Morton cc: clameter@sgi.com, , , , , , Subject: Re: page fault scalability patch V12 [0/7]: Overview and performance tests In-Reply-To: <20041210141258.491f3d48.akpm@osdl.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 10 Dec 2004, Andrew Morton wrote: > Hugh Dickins wrote: > > > > > > (I do wonder why do_anonymous_page calls mark_page_accessed as well as > > > > lru_cache_add_active. The other instances of lru_cache_add_active for > > > > an anonymous page don't mark_page_accessed i.e. SetPageReferenced too, > > > > why here? But that's nothing new with your patch, and although you've > > > > reordered the calls, the final page state is the same as before.) > > The point is a good one - I guess that code is a holdover from earlier > implementations. > > This is equivalent, no? Yes, it is equivalent to use SetPageReferenced(page) there instead. But why is do_anonymous_page adding anything to lru_cache_add_active, when its other callers leave it at that? What's special about the do_anonymous_page case? Hugh