> We do what's most efficient for the core. Which I think is refcount
> both ways regardless, since these "page"s are exceptional, and the
> majority really do need refcounting.
Well, refcounting _might_ be useful for some usage of these, but we
simply must make sure that those pages are never returned back to the
pool when refcount reach 0, that's it.
> But you don't mind if they are refcounted, do you?
> Just so long as they start out from 1 so never get freed.
Well, a refcounting bug would let them be freed and kaboom ... That's
why a "PG_not_your_ram_dammit" bit would be useful. It could at least
BUG_ON when refcount reaches 0 :)
> You'll actually be needing nopage() on them?
Yes.
> That idea has come up
> before, it's not out of the question (though I think wli suggested
> we ought rather to change the nopage interface if so), but it's a
> different topic from the current removal of PageReserved anyway.
It is a different topic indeed. Wli proposal would be useful for us
here, but in the meantime, We can just create struct pages and rely on
sparsemem to have a not-too-horrible mem_map :)
Ben.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |