Re: [patch 17/20] non-reclaimable mlocked pages

[Rik van Riel]

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 23:19:00 -0800 (PST)
Christoph Lameter <clameter@xxxxxxx> 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 majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/