| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20071220103332.11c4bbd2@bree.surriel.com> Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 10:33:32 -0500 From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com> To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....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, 19 Dec 2007 23:19:00 -0800 (PST) Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com> wrote: > On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > 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. > > But there is something to be said for having a consistent scheme. The code as called from .c files should indeed be consistent. However, since we never need to scan the non-reclaimable list, we could use the inline functions in the .h files to have an mlock count instead of a .lru list head in the non-reclaimable pages. At least, I think so. I'm going to have to think about the details a lot more. I have no idea yet if there will be any impact from batching the pages on pagevecs, vs. an atomic mlock count... -- 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