On Wed, 21 Sep 2005, Blaisorblade wrote:
>
> Other pages in the VMA may be unmapped, yes, but not freed. In fact, they're
> kept in by the pagecache reference; try_to_unmap() (or better its caller,
> shrink_list) will only actually free the page it asked for.
Not freed in that pass, yes; but brought closer to being freed soon.
> The only real "problem" is that we do ptep_clear_flush_young without
> activating the page. And yes, *this* may penalize who holds a nonlinear VMA.
> But this is probably fair, given that we're going to have trouble in freeing
> those pages.
Good point, I don't remember ever considering that.
But agree it should work out fairly.
> > mm/trash.c? I got quite excited,
> What would that have meant?
Trash is rubbish or garbage. Or if I trash my hotel room (not me!),
I'd rip the washbasin off the wall, smash the mirror, throw the
chair through the window, ... hmm, better stop this public fantasy.
Hugh
-
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/
- References:
- [RFC] [patch 0/18] remap_file_pages protection support (for UML), try 3
- Remap_file_pages, RSS limits, security implications (was: Re: [uml-devel] Re: [RFC] [patch 0/18] remap_file_pages protection support (for UML), try 3)
- Re: Remap_file_pages, RSS limits, security implications (was: Re: [uml-devel] Re: [RFC] [patch 0/18] remap_file_pages protection support (for UML), try 3)
- Re: Remap_file_pages, RSS limits, security implications (was: Re: [uml-devel] Re: [RFC] [patch 0/18] remap_file_pages protection support (for UML), try 3)
[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]
|
|