lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Mar]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH][0/8] (Targeting 2.6.17) Posix memory locking and balanced mlock-LRU semantic
    On 3/20/06, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> wrote:
    > > 1. Posix mlock/munlock/mlockall/munlockall.
    > > Get mlock/munlock/mlockall/munlockall to Posix definiton: transaction-like,
    > > just as described in the manpage(2) of mlock/munlock/mlockall/munlockall.
    > > Thus users of mlock system call series will always have an clear map of
    > > mlocked areas.
    > > 2. More consistent LRU semantics in Memory Management.
    > > Mlocked pages is placed on a separate LRU list: Wired List.
    >
    > please give this a more logical name, such as mlocked list or pinned
    > list

    Shaoping, thanks for doing this work, it is something I have been
    thinking about for the past few weeks. It's especially nice to be
    able to see how many pages are pinned in this manner.

    Might I suggest calling it the long_term_pinned list? It also might
    be worth putting ramdisk pages on this list, since they cannot be
    written out in response to memory pressure. This would eliminate the
    need for AOP_WRITEPAGE_ACTIVATE.

    NATE
    -
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2006-03-21 00:55    [W:0.027 / U:31.904 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site