linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 5/7] Laundry handling for direct reclaim

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 21 Aug 2007 13:55:32 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To:	Mel Gorman <mel@...net.ie>
cc:	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, dkegel@...gle.com,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC 5/7] Laundry handling for direct reclaim

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007, Mel Gorman wrote:

> > @@ -1156,6 +1156,7 @@ unsigned long try_to_free_pages(struct z
> >  		.swappiness = vm_swappiness,
> >  		.order = order,
> >  	};
> > +	LIST_HEAD(laundry);
> 
> Why is the laundry not made part of the scan_control?

That is one possibility. The other is to treat laundry as a lru type list 
under zone->lru_lock. This would allow the writeback process (whichever 
that is) to be independent of the producer of the laundry. Dirty pages 
could be isolated from an atomic context.
-
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/