At Tue, 8 Feb 2005 16:26:26 + (GMT),
Hugh Dickins wrote:
>
> On Mon, 7 Feb 2005, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > On Thu, 3 Feb 2005, IWAMOTO Toshihiro wrote:
> > > The current implementation of memory hotremoval relies on that pages
> > > can be unmapped from pro
At Tue, 8 Feb 2005 16:26:26 + (GMT),
Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005, Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005, IWAMOTO Toshihiro wrote:
The current implementation of memory hotremoval relies on that pages
can be unmapped from process spaces. After successful unmapping
At Mon, 7 Feb 2005 21:24:59 + (GMT),
Hugh Dickins wrote:
>
> On Thu, 3 Feb 2005, IWAMOTO Toshihiro wrote:
> > The current implementation of memory hotremoval relies on that pages
> > can be unmapped from process spaces. After successful unmapping,
> > subseque
At Mon, 7 Feb 2005 21:24:59 + (GMT),
Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005, IWAMOTO Toshihiro wrote:
The current implementation of memory hotremoval relies on that pages
can be unmapped from process spaces. After successful unmapping,
subsequent accesses to the pages are blocked
The current implementation of memory hotremoval relies on that pages
can be unmapped from process spaces. After successful unmapping,
subsequent accesses to the pages are blocked and don't interfere
the hotremoval operation.
However, this code
if (PageSwapCache(page) &&
The current implementation of memory hotremoval relies on that pages
can be unmapped from process spaces. After successful unmapping,
subsequent accesses to the pages are blocked and don't interfere
the hotremoval operation.
However, this code
if (PageSwapCache(page)
6 matches
Mail list logo