[lkml]   [2003]   [Jul]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: What to expect with the 2.6 VM
On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 03:15:51PM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>> What complexity? Just unmap it if you can't allocate a pte_chain and
>> park it on the LRU.

On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 12:26:41AM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> the complexity in munlock to rebuild what you destroyed in mlock, that's
> linear at best (and for anonymous mappings there's no objrmap, plus
> objrmap isn't even linear but quadratic in its scan [hence the problem
> with it], though in practice it would be normally faster than the linear
> of the page scanning ;)

Computational complexity; okay.

It's not quadratic; at each munlock(), it's not necessary to do
anything more than:

for each page this mlock()'er (not _all_ mlock()'ers) maps of this thing
grab some pagewise lock
if pte_chain allocation succeeded
add pte_chain
/* you'll need to put anon pages in swapcache in mlock() */
unmap the page
decrement lockcount
if lockcount vanished
park it on the LRU
drop the pagewise lock

Individual mappers whose mappings are not mlock()'d add pte_chains when
faulting the things in just like before.

-- wli
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:46    [W:0.115 / U:1.820 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site