[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALvZod5HcYVcGQff2Em_4uxqVm4rQMnO4RJYhJKQ-NtXzvO17g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 12:46:50 -0700
From: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
Yisheng Xie <xieyisheng1@...wei.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: mlock: remove lru_add_drain_all()
> [...]
>>
>> Sorry for the confusion. I wanted to say that if the pages which are
>> being mlocked are on caches of remote cpus then lru_add_drain_all will
>> move them to their corresponding LRUs and then remaining functionality
>> of mlock will move them again from their evictable LRUs to unevictable
>> LRU.
>
> yes, but the point is that we are draining pages which might be not
> directly related to pages which _will_ be mlocked by the syscall. In
> fact those will stay on the cache. This is the primary reason why this
> draining doesn't make much sense.
>
> Or am I still misunderstanding what you are saying here?
>
lru_add_drain_all() will drain everything irrespective if those pages
are being mlocked or not.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists