On Wed, 2007-12-19 at 08:45 -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
quoted text
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:56:48 +1100
> Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.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.


--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/