lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Dec]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [patch 17/20] non-reclaimable mlocked pages
    From
    Date

    On Wed, 2007-12-19 at 08:45 -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
    > On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:56:48 +1100
    > Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
    >
    > > On Wednesday 19 December 2007 08:15, Rik van Riel wrote:
    > >
    > > > Rework of a patch by Nick Piggin -- part 1 of 2.
    > > >
    > > > This patch:
    > > >
    > > > 1) defines the [CONFIG_]NORECLAIM_MLOCK sub-option and the
    > > > stub version of the mlock/noreclaim APIs when it's
    > > > not configured. Depends on [CONFIG_]NORECLAIM.
    >
    > > Hmm, I still don't know (or forgot) why you don't just use the
    > > old scheme of having an mlock count in the LRU bit, and removing
    > > the mlocked page from the LRU completely.
    >
    > How do we detect those pages reliably in the lumpy reclaim code?
    >
    > > These mlocked pages don't need to be on a non-reclaimable list,
    > > because we can find them again via the ptes when they become
    > > unlocked, and there is no point background scanning them, because
    > > they're always going to be locked while they're mlocked.

    I thought Lee had patches that moved pages with long rmap chains (both
    anon and file) out onto the non-reclaim list, for those a slow
    background scan does make sense.




    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2007-12-19 15:27    [W:0.020 / U:30.212 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site