Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH][0/8] (Targeting 2.6.17) Posix memory locking and balanced mlock-LRU semantic | From | Arjan van de Ven <> | Date | Tue, 21 Mar 2006 08:10:52 +0100 |
| |
On Mon, 2006-03-20 at 15:52 -0800, Nate Diller wrote: > On 3/20/06, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> wrote: > > > 1. Posix mlock/munlock/mlockall/munlockall. > > > Get mlock/munlock/mlockall/munlockall to Posix definiton: transaction-like, > > > just as described in the manpage(2) of mlock/munlock/mlockall/munlockall. > > > Thus users of mlock system call series will always have an clear map of > > > mlocked areas. > > > 2. More consistent LRU semantics in Memory Management. > > > Mlocked pages is placed on a separate LRU list: Wired List. > > > > please give this a more logical name, such as mlocked list or pinned > > list > > Shaoping, thanks for doing this work, it is something I have been > thinking about for the past few weeks. It's especially nice to be > able to see how many pages are pinned in this manner. > > 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.
I like that idea
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |