[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 16:25:24 +0100 (BST)
From: Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jakub Jelinek <jakub@...hat.com>,
Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: missing madvise functionality
On Wed, 4 Apr 2007, Rik van Riel wrote:
> Hugh Dickins wrote:
>
> > (I didn't understand how Rik would achieve his point 5, _no_ lock
> > contention while repeatedly re-marking these pages, but never mind.)
>
> The CPU marks them accessed&dirty when they are reused.
>
> The VM only moves the reused pages back to the active list
> on memory pressure. This means that when the system is
> not under memory pressure, the same page can simply stay
> PG_lazyfree for multiple malloc/free rounds.
Sure, there's no need for repetitious locking at the LRU end of it;
but you said "if the system has lots of free memory, pages can go
through multiple free/malloc cycles while sitting on the dontneed
list, very lazily with no lock contention". I took that to mean,
with userspace repeatedly madvising on the ranges they fall in,
which will involve mmap_sem and ptl each time - just in order
to check that no LRU movement is required each time.
(Of course, there's also the problem that we don't leave our
systems with lots of free memory: some LRU balancing decisions.)
Hugh
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists