Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 20 Dec 2007 10:33:32 -0500 | From | Rik van Riel <> | Subject | Re: [patch 17/20] non-reclaimable mlocked pages |
| |
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 23:19:00 -0800 (PST) Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com> 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...
| |