DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition
         :references;
        b=AY8A5atnnU9q6CdjUma7tq7x7oXlrWWGX/9guOgV9QkVDmOkGvDO15IzxUWFiYHZLu
         C0SSD7nLIY7SsUSCJbCZyEjgklDPi7TkEVahCu8JsqoZVUIFLmrbzfmd04yWLSn+WkJE
         Eb74oKHlm8CDJAYhNwpq7zk5HMNBq0ZpVM73g=
Message-ID: <38b2ab8a0808080222h6d810b7fheefaf3633e65ea8a@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 11:22:29 +0200
From: "Francis Moreau" <francis.moro@gmail.com>
To: "Hugh Dickins" <hugh@veritas.com>
Subject: Re: question about do_anonymous_page()
Cc: "Rik van Riel" <riel@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       linux-mm@kvack.org
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0808080938001.15941@blonde.site>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <38b2ab8a0808080101v795327f0n9da5adb33a3c1a9@mail.gmail.com>
	 <38b2ab8a0808080123t5083dc17qa250bd02c753f80d@mail.gmail.com>
	 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0808080938001.15941@blonde.site>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1528
Lines: 44

On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 10:51 AM, Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com> wrote:
>> Is it simply because lru_add_active() doesn't exist ?
>
> Yes.
>

great at least one thing I understood from the kernel mm internals ;)

> It just happens that whoever (Rik?) originally named that function was
> primarily thinking of the page cache at the time; or perhaps wasn't
> thinking of the file page cache at all, just regarding all the pages
> we put on that list as cached in some sense.
>

I think it might be the second reason since the page is not directly
added to the LRU
but to a pagevec structure since the term 'cache'. But IMHO if so,
it's just confusing and
lru_cache_add_active() shouldn't contain implemantation details in its name.

> You're right that it's a little anomalous, but nothing to worry about.

well, it's just that I got confusing when reading the code for the
first time. I really have hard
time to understand it...

> I get more bothered by page_cache_get(), which is and always(?) has
> been the same thing as get_page(): sometimes we use one, sometimes
> the other, and often we use page_cache_get() on anonymous pages.
>

Yes and this is what confused me: lru_cache_add_active() does call
page_cache_get()
for anymous pages, hence my question.


Thanks !
-- 
Francis
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/