From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 23:19:00 -0800 (PST) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [patch 17/20] non-reclaimable mlocked pages In-Reply-To: <200712191156.48507.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> Message-ID: References: <20071218211539.250334036@redhat.com> <20071218211550.186819416@redhat.com> <200712191156.48507.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Nick Piggin Cc: Rik van Riel , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lee.shermerhorn@hp.com, Lee Schermerhorn List-ID: 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. Here we already introduce address space flags for one kind of unreclaimability. Isnt it possible to come up with a way to categorize pages that works (mostly) the same way for all types of pages with reclaim issues? -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org