[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080613180348.55d3fb67@bree.surriel.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 18:03:48 -0400
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To: Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>
Cc: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.26-rc5-mm2 (swap_state.c:77)
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 22:15:01 +0100 (BST)
Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com> wrote:
> > I guess we'll need per-mapping flags to help determine where
> > a page goes at add_to_page_cache_lru() time.
>
> The better way would be to add a backing_dev_info flag. (At one
> point I had been going to criticize your per-mapping AS_UNEVICTABLE,
> to say that one should be a backing_dev_info flag; but no, you're
> right, you've the SHM_LOCK case where it has to be per-mapping.)
Good point. I'll take a look at that.
> > > Am I right to think that the memcontrol stuff is now all broken,
> > > because memcontrol.c hasn't yet been converted to the more LRUs?
> > > Certainly I'm now hanging when trying to run in a restricted memcg.
> >
> > I believe memcontrol has been converted. Of course, maybe
> > they changed some stuff under me that I didn't notice :(
>
> Ah, yes, there are NR_LRU_LISTS arrays in there now, so it has
> the appearance of having been converted. Fine, then it's worth
> my looking into why it isn't actually working as intended.
I believe that Lee and Kosaki-san have tested this code,
so the breakage could be pretty new.
--
All rights reversed.
--
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