Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 3 Mar 2004 17:57:46 +0100 | From | Andrea Arcangeli <> | Subject | Re: 230-objrmap fixes for 2.6.3-mjb2 |
| |
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 07:46:32AM -0800, Martin J. Bligh wrote: > --Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> wrote (on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 02:58:20 -0800): > > > Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de> wrote: > >> > >> --- sles-objrmap/mm/rmap.c.~1~ 2004-03-03 06:45:38.995594456 +0100 > >> +++ sles-objrmap/mm/rmap.c 2004-03-03 07:01:39.200621104 +0100 > >> @@ -470,7 +470,7 @@ try_to_unmap_obj_one(struct vm_area_stru > >> if (!pte) > >> goto out; > >> > >> - if (vma->vm_flags & VM_LOCKED) { > >> + if (vma->vm_flags & (VM_LOCKED|VM_RESERVED)) { > >> ret = SWAP_FAIL; > >> goto out_unmap; > > > > I keep on wanting to put that in there too. But pages in a VM_RESERVED vma > > should not find their way onto the LRU. Maybe we should be checking for > > that in do_no_page(). > > There was talk at one point of moving the "unswappable" state down into > the struct page. Is that still realistic? It would seem rather more > efficient, but I forget what problem we ran into with it.
that already exists and it's PG_reserved, but it's inefficient compared to VM_RESERVED, since it forces the vm to check all ptes. - 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/
| |