On Mon 27-02-17 08:19:08, Shaohua Li wrote: > On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 03:33:15PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote: [...] > > > --- a/include/linux/rmap.h > > > +++ b/include/linux/rmap.h > > > @@ -298,6 +298,6 @@ static inline int page_mkclean(struct page *page) > > > #define SWAP_AGAIN 1 > > > #define SWAP_FAIL 2 > > > #define SWAP_MLOCK 3 > > > -#define SWAP_LZFREE 4 > > > +#define SWAP_DIRTY 4 > > > > I still don't convinced why we should introduce SWAP_DIRTY in try_to_unmap. > > https://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=148797879123238&w=2 > > > > We have been SetPageMlocked in there but why cannot we SetPageSwapBacked > > in there? It's not a thing to change LRU type but it's just indication > > we found the page's status changed in late. > > This one I don't have strong preference. Personally I agree with Johannes, > handling failure in vmscan sounds better. But since the failure handling is > just one statement, this probably doesn't make too much difference. If > Johannes > and you made an agreement, I'll follow.
FWIW I like your current SWAP_DIRTY and the later handling at the vmscan level more. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
