From: Rik van Riel Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] mm: Ensure that mark_page_accessed moves pages to the active list Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 13:12:03 -0400 Message-ID: <517EA9E3.6050407@redhat.com> References: <1367253119-6461-1-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de> <1367253119-6461-3-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Alexey Lyahkov , Andrew Perepechko , Robin Dong , Theodore Tso , Andrew Morton , Hugh Dickins , Johannes Weiner , Bernd Schubert , David Howells , Trond Myklebust , Linux-fsdevel , Linux-ext4 , LKML , Linux-mm To: Mel Gorman Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1367253119-6461-3-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org On 04/29/2013 12:31 PM, Mel Gorman wrote: > A PageActive page is now added to the inactivate list. > > While this looks strange, I think it is sufficiently harmless that additional > barriers to address the case is not justified. Unfortunately, while I never > witnessed it myself, these parallel updates potentially trigger defensive > DEBUG_VM checks on PageActive and hence they are removed by this patch. Could this not cause issues with __page_cache_release, called from munmap, exit, truncate, etc.? Could the eventual skewing of active vs inactive numbers break page reclaim heuristics? I wonder if we would need to move to a scheme where the PG_active bit is always the authoritive one, and we never pass an overriding "lru" parameter to __pagevec_lru_add. Would memory ordering between SetPageLRU and testing for PageLRU be enough to then prevent the statistics from going off? -- All rights reversed -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org