[lkml]   [2005]   [Nov]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 09/11] unpaged: ZERO_PAGE in VM_UNPAGED
    On Thu, 17 Nov 2005, Ingo Oeser wrote:
    > We do we refcount ZERO_PAGE at all?

    We never used to. They were, and for the moment still are, marked
    PageReserved. Prior to 2.6.15-rc we didn't refcount reserved pages,
    but now we're trying to move away from PageReserved (some differences
    of opinion how far to go), so refcounting them.

    We're currently refcounting the ZERO_PAGE(s) simply because the
    common case is refcounted: it would just be extra tests and code
    NOT to refcount the ZERO_PAGE(s). If they were a commoner case,
    then it would indeed be worth avoiding refcounting them, but it
    currently doesn't appear to be worth the effort.

    But it is still up in the air: there is or may be an issue with
    refcounts overflowing, and if it's clear that the ZERO_PAGE is
    the only one vulnerable on any architecture, then I'm sure we'd
    deal with it by not refcounting them. However, I believe the
    issue extends to mapped file pages too: though you need a huge
    amount of RAM to reach overflow, so it's not something we need
    to resolve this week.

    > Ok, there may be multiple, but they exist always and always at
    > the same physical addresses, right?


    > So why do we care at all?
    > Memory hotplug?
    > Doesn't it suffice there, that they are reverse mappable?

    Actually, they're not reverse mappable: we tend to find
    there's not much gained by swapping out the ZERO_PAGE ;)

    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: 2005-11-18 21:02    [W:0.023 / U:3.636 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site