[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1198074247.6484.17.camel@twins>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 15:24:07 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Lee Schermerhorn <lee.schermerhorn@...com>
Subject: Re: [patch 17/20] non-reclaimable mlocked pages
On Wed, 2007-12-19 at 08:45 -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:56:48 +1100
> Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday 19 December 2007 08:15, Rik van Riel wrote:
> >
> > > Rework of a patch by Nick Piggin -- part 1 of 2.
> > >
> > > This patch:
> > >
> > > 1) defines the [CONFIG_]NORECLAIM_MLOCK sub-option and the
> > > stub version of the mlock/noreclaim APIs when it's
> > > not configured. Depends on [CONFIG_]NORECLAIM.
>
> > Hmm, I still don't know (or forgot) why you don't just use the
> > old scheme of having an mlock count in the LRU bit, and removing
> > the mlocked page from the LRU completely.
>
> How do we detect those pages reliably in the lumpy reclaim code?
>
> > These mlocked pages don't need to be on a non-reclaimable list,
> > because we can find them again via the ptes when they become
> > unlocked, and there is no point background scanning them, because
> > they're always going to be locked while they're mlocked.
I thought Lee had patches that moved pages with long rmap chains (both
anon and file) out onto the non-reclaim list, for those a slow
background scan does make sense.
--
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