On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 23:19:00 -0800 (PST)
Christoph Lameter <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> But there is something to be said for having a consistent scheme.
The code as called from .c files should indeed be consistent.
However, since we never need to scan the non-reclaimable list,
we could use the inline functions in the .h files to have an
mlock count instead of a .lru list head in the non-reclaimable
pages.
At least, I think so. I'm going to have to think about the
details a lot more. I have no idea yet if there will be any
impact from batching the pages on pagevecs, vs. an atomic
mlock count...
--
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]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
