Re: [PATCH][0/8] (Targeting 2.6.17) Posix memory locking and balanced mlock-LRU semantic

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

To: Nate Diller <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][0/8] (Targeting 2.6.17) Posix memory locking and balanced mlock-LRU semantic
From: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 23:24:09 +1100
Cc: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>, Stone Wang <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com.au; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:X-Accept-Language:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=QrzbR+KYoOHhyAntxPrVfcGHWWLXo59RD5lXpa5Nc7bTPYbt7ebtDajVJf1/0ZjC4z8ZH8L3WLIlkiBT4QsZ5CsancJouG9iIUVNlg11UQ3AKjqJ6DI30BgdNq0DlLLueDgh6gFvR5ICwGcHeF7K6q2wYEuXVuR8dpEs9ZuHMyo= ;
In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Sender: [email protected]
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20051007 Debian/1.7.12-1

Nate Diller wrote:

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.


They are for the ram filesystem, btw. and I don't think you can eliminate
AOP_WRITEPAGE_ACTIVATE, because it is needed for a number of reasons (out
of swap space being one).

--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com-

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:
- [PATCH][0/8] (Targeting 2.6.17) Posix memory locking and balanced mlock-LRU semantic
  - From: "Stone Wang" <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH][0/8] (Targeting 2.6.17) Posix memory locking and balanced mlock-LRU semantic
  - From: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH][0/8] (Targeting 2.6.17) Posix memory locking and balanced mlock-LRU semantic
  - From: "Nate Diller" <[email protected]>

Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH][4/8] Documentation/vm: minor corrections
Next by Date: Re: interactive task starvation
Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH][0/8] (Targeting 2.6.17) Posix memory locking and balanced mlock-LRU semantic
Next by thread: Re: [PATCH][0/8] (Targeting 2.6.17) Posix memory locking and balanced mlock-LRU semantic
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Kernel Newbies] [Netfilter] [Bugtraq] [Photo] [Stuff] [Gimp] [Yosemite News] [MIPS Linux] [ARM Linux] [Linux Security] [Linux RAID] [Video 4 Linux] [Linux for the blind] [Linux Resources]

Powered by Linux