From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Balbir Singh Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6 mm] swapoff: scan ptes preemptibly Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 10:34:02 +0530 Message-ID: <4737DEC2.2080803@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: Reply-To: balbir-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org To: Hugh Dickins Cc: containers-qjLDD68F18O7TbgM5vRIOg@public.gmane.org, linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org, Andrew Morton List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org Hugh Dickins wrote: > Provided that CONFIG_HIGHPTE is not set, unuse_pte_range can reduce latency > in swapoff by scanning the page table preemptibly: so long as unuse_pte is > careful to recheck that entry under pte lock. > > (To tell the truth, this patch was not inspired by any cries for lower > latency here: rather, this restructuring permits a future memory controller > patch to allocate with GFP_KERNEL in unuse_pte, where before it could not. > But it would be wrong to tuck this change away inside a memcgroup patch.) > > Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins > --- Looks good to me Acked-by: Balbir Singh and earlier Tested-by: Balbir Singh -- Warm Regards, Balbir Singh Linux Technology Center IBM, ISTL