Re: [PATCH 7/8] mm: vmscan: Immediately reclaim end-of-LRU dirty pages when writeback completes

[Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 02:23:19PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 02:53:48PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-07-21 at 17:28 +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > When direct reclaim encounters a dirty page, it gets recycled around
> > > the LRU for another cycle. This patch marks the page PageReclaim
> > > similar to deactivate_page() so that the page gets reclaimed almost
> > > immediately after the page gets cleaned. This is to avoid reclaiming
> > > clean pages that are younger than a dirty page encountered at the
> > > end of the LRU that might have been something like a use-once page.
> > > 
> > 
> > > @@ -834,7 +834,15 @@ static unsigned long shrink_page_list(struct 
> > > list_head *page_list,
> > >                    */
> > >                   if (page_is_file_cache(page) &&
> > >                                   (!current_is_kswapd() || priority >= 
> > > DEF_PRIORITY - 2)) {
> > > -                         inc_zone_page_state(page, NR_VMSCAN_WRITE_SKIP);
> > > +                         /*
> > > +                          * Immediately reclaim when written back.
> > > +                          * Similar in principal to deactivate_page()
> > > +                          * except we already have the page isolated
> > > +                          * and know it's dirty
> > > +                          */
> > > +                         inc_zone_page_state(page, NR_VMSCAN_INVALIDATE);
> > > +                         SetPageReclaim(page);
> > > +
> > 
> > I find the invalidate name somewhat confusing. It makes me think we'll
> > drop the page without writeback, like invalidatepage().
> 
> I wasn't that happy with it either to be honest but didn't think of a
> better one at the time. nr_reclaim_deferred?

How about "NR_VMSCAN_IMMEDIATE_RECLAIM" like comment rotate_reclaimable_page?

> 
> -- 
> Mel Gorman
> SUSE Labs

-- 
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim