Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:22:42 +0900 | | From | KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <> | | Subject | Re: [Experimental][PATCH] putback_lru_page rework |
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 14:21:06 -0400
Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@hp.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-06-18 at 18:40 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > Lee-san, how about this ?
> > Tested on x86-64 and tried Nisimura-san's test at el. works good now.
>
> I have been testing with my work load on both ia64 and x86_64 and it
> seems to be working well. I'll let them run for a day or so.
>
thank you.
<snip>
> > @@ -240,6 +232,9 @@ static int __munlock_pte_handler(pte_t *
> > struct page *page;
> > pte_t pte;
> >
> > + /*
> > + * page is never be unmapped by page-reclaim. we lock this page now.
> > + */
>
> I don't understand what you're trying to say here. That is, what the
> point of this comment is...
>
We access the page-table without taking pte_lock. But this vm is MLOCKED
and migration-race is handled. So we don't need to be too nervous to access
the pte. I'll consider more meaningful words.
Thanks,
-Kame
|  |