| 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: <alpine.LSU.2.00.1203141842490.2232@eggly.anvils> Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 18:47:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com> To: Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...nvz.org> cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Johannes Weiner <jweiner@...hat.com>, "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7 v2] mm: rework __isolate_lru_page() file/anon filter On Sat, 10 Mar 2012, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote: > Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote: > > > > No, for non-lumpy isolation we don't need this check at all, > > because all pages already picked from right lru list. > > > > I'll send separate patch for this (on top v5 patchset), after meditation =) > > Heh, looks like we don't need these checks at all: > without RECLAIM_MODE_LUMPYRECLAIM we isolate only pages from right lru, > with RECLAIM_MODE_LUMPYRECLAIM we isolate pages from all evictable lru. > Thus we should check only PageUnevictable() on lumpy reclaim. Yes, those were great simplfying insights: I'm puzzling over why you didn't follow through on them in your otherwise nice 4.5/7, which still involves lru bits in the isolate mode? Hugh -- 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