* Shaohua Li <s...@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 01, 2014 at 02:31:31PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On 04/01/2014 12:21 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 9:11 AM, Rik van Riel <r...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Memory pressure is not necessarily caused by the same process
> > >> whose accessed bit we just cleared. Memory pressure may not
> > >> even be caused by any process's virtual memory at all, but it
> > >> could be caused by the page cache.
> > >
> > > If we have that much memory pressure on the page cache without having
> > > any memory pressure on the actual VM space, then the swap-out activity
> > > will never be an issue anyway.
> > >
> > > IOW, I think all these scenarios are made-up. I'd much rather go for
> > > simpler implementation, and make things more complex only in the
> > > presence of numbers. Of which we have none.
> >
> > We've been bitten by the lack of a properly tracked accessed
> > bit before, but admittedly that was with the KVM code and EPT.
> >
> > I'll add my Acked-by: to Shaohua's original patch then, and
> > will keep my eyes open for any problems that may or may not
> > materialize...
> >
> > Shaohua?
>
> I'd agree to choose the simple implementation at current stage and check if
> there are problems really.
>
> Andrew,
> can you please pick up my orginal patch "x86: clearing access bit don't
> flush tlb" (with Rik's Ack)? Or I can resend it if you preferred.
Please resend it so I can pick it up for this cycle, that approach
obviously looks good.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
