lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Mar]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH][0/8] (Targeting 2.6.17) Posix memory locking and balanced mlock-LRU semantic
From
Date
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-03-21 08:13    [W:0.071 / U:0.108 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site