lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 10:50:57 -0700 From: Rohit Seth <rohitseth@...gle.com> To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, CKRM-Tech <ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net>, devel@...nvz.org, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Memory Management <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com> Subject: Re: [patch00/05]: Containers(V2)- Introduction On Thu, 2006-09-21 at 03:00 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > (this time to the lists as well) > > Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > I'd much rather containterize the whole reclaim code, which should not > > be too hard since he already adds a container pointer to struct page. > > Right now the memory handler in this container subsystem is written in such a way that when existing kernel reclaimer kicks in, it will first operate on those (container with pages over the limit) pages first. But in general I like the notion of containerizing the whole reclaim code. > > I still have to reread what Rohit does for file backed pages, that gave > > my head a spin. Please let me know if there is any specific part that isn't making much sense. -rohit - 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