Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:14:11 -0700 | | From | William Lee Irwin III <> | | Subject | Re: What to expect with the 2.6 VM |
| |
At some point in the past, I wrote: >> (c) redo the logic around page_convert_anon() and incrementally build >> pte_chains for remap_file_pages(). >> The anobjrmap code did exactly this, but it was chaining >> distinct user virtual addresses instead. >> After all 3 are done, remap_file_pages() integrates smoothly into the VM, >> requires no magical privileges, nothing magical or brutally invasive >> that would scare people just before 2.6.0 is required, and the big >> apps can get their magical lowmem savings by just mlock()'ing _anything_ >> they do massive sharing with, regardless of remap_file_pages().
On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 02:48:14PM -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote: > If you have (anon) object based rmap, I don't see why you want to build > a pte_chain on a per-page basis - keeping this info on a per linear > area seems much more efficient. We still have a reverse mapping for > everything this way.
Eh? This is just suggesting using similar devices as were used in the anobjrmap patch. I'm not terribly convinced about the remap_file_pages() extents, since they're only going to be a factor of 8 or so space reduction.
anobjrmap actually didn't use vma-like devices for anon pages, it merely chained mm's that could share anon pages (fork()'s between exec()'s) in a list that could be scanned, tagged anon pages with vaddrs, and then walks that list of mm's when unmapping or checking referenced bits.
-- wli - 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/
|  |