On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 23:19:00 -0800 (PST) Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
