Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 20 Mar 2006 15:52:55 -0800 | From | "Nate Diller" <> | Subject | Re: [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/
| |