Received: by 2002:ad5:474a:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id i10csp784150imu; Mon, 5 Nov 2018 08:44:07 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5eobvOZsuzU2OlUg8mwYKQUc4UAVO5ho3TRsU0sBknkHhkcAGiTvKZ+/nJAnQsZjSpQSvZ4 X-Received: by 2002:a62:62c3:: with SMTP id w186-v6mr22843280pfb.5.1541436247891; Mon, 05 Nov 2018 08:44:07 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1541436247; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=SRds0Bz2qtpncXYPDJtJPByYJfW+AbsdJKf1VCwzb7rdIcYj2jmomWzL9bBBkxlbtb rMPiY5XjggpeS5muRr7hkvhIeETqmw/O5IyDDfYuutAWqtUnYCuopXTE8MY7dNMpc06p 2Bcwaffu95IjRol8RwUZe7pQ7ozsxgdSkXu7pT7B9Am4D/BmL7YKfOGHTO4HX34Sd9tL MypAyGRnKexlDKaLcR0YJeOCdd3ZsZCwLHS4OEDTPCbvRJoRgn1G0/GoGTEr6c4Ih23m 9yU/x+eRC+nySB22tIL3oIVRLLW40uyd3W2DEswnPs8nMjsvhBR8TYiAQWFAwTO8RcjR rI2w== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:user-agent:in-reply-to :content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc :to:from:date; bh=DU6nod+tTY3mfcLcxZxkqnSLEoVZ3cTzVvwKG+88Ovo=; b=muB5qtn5j3JNLFyXUeGfPmvbXsAanOJYmAyg9ViRFf6rCGphMk6ABZXBLzXvL2xQNg 5fsNj6hWgSP7sCP6vPT8MkZ5+bC+Grwayb9H+Pw4YveWodUYyeSAW4Kn3ojCUMsKniXR RLuK8BPAMCzWbu6g7euGZH1Wd3CtLwdYWH5z6QVCl7YmtVn+lFGhzNM7LGQ0GwfrC/1L a3ziV8BiXYk7zSzj6/e4PrwwMPd42VzyiNTnnv6dnemeORvTa0ZxPYY3IFbSbc5vGVjZ dCTkegKxIC1OCymtwST2jAdWxBJ2ZtRE3UfP5oBqpyRs59SCDa8zyORWDjogswEQe4T4 Dc0g== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id 30si9604281pgr.396.2018.11.05.08.43.52; Mon, 05 Nov 2018 08:44:07 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2387562AbeKFCCL (ORCPT + 99 others); Mon, 5 Nov 2018 21:02:11 -0500 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:54434 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2387426AbeKFCCL (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Nov 2018 21:02:11 -0500 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id C94CEB08D; Mon, 5 Nov 2018 16:41:38 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 17:41:35 +0100 From: Michal Hocko To: Kuo-Hsin Yang Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Chris Wilson , Joonas Lahtinen , Peter Zijlstra , Andrew Morton , Dave Hansen Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] mm, drm/i915: mark pinned shmemfs pages as unevictable Message-ID: <20181105164135.GM4361@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20181105111348.182492-1-vovoy@chromium.org> <20181105130209.GI4361@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon 05-11-18 22:33:13, Kuo-Hsin Yang wrote: > On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 9:02 PM Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > On Mon 05-11-18 19:13:48, Kuo-Hsin Yang wrote: [...] > > > + * @pvec: pagevec with pages to check > > > * > > > - * Checks pages for evictability and moves them to the appropriate lru list. > > > - * > > > - * This function is only used for SysV IPC SHM_UNLOCK. > > > + * This function is only used to move shmem pages. > > > > I do not really see anything that would be shmem specific here. We can > > use this function for any LRU pages unless I am missing something > > obscure. I would just drop the last sentence. > > OK, this function should not be specific to shmem pages. > > Is it OK to remove the #ifdef SHMEM surrounding check_move_unevictable_pages? Yes, I think so. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs