Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 00:16:09 +0100
From: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>
To: "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@aracnet.com>
Cc: Dave McCracken <dmccr@us.ibm.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 230-objrmap fixes for 2.6.3-mjb2
Message-ID: <20040303231609.GX4922@dualathlon.random>
References: <20040303070933.GB4922@dualathlon.random> <20040303025820.2cf6078a.akpm@osdl.org> <7440000.1078328791@[10.10.2.4]> <20040303165746.GO4922@dualathlon.random> <10500000.1078333658@[10.1.1.4]> <20040303183901.GU4922@dualathlon.random> <14140000.1078339447@[10.1.1.4]> <20040303185122.GV4922@dualathlon.random> <102790000.1078349975@flay>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <102790000.1078349975@flay>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 939
Lines: 18

On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 01:39:35PM -0800, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> > what we do in 2.4 and that works pretty well, that is simply to refile
> > pages into the active list if they're mlocked, so we don't waste too
> > much cpu on them since we don't analyze them too often. this should work
> > pretty well for everybody, or peraphs google may prefer to have a fully
> > consistent PG_mlocked.
> 
> If the page is actually mlocked, wouldn't it make more sense to remove
> it from both the active and inactive lists altogether? Scanning it seems
> like it'd be less than fruitful.

yes, that's probably better, but the brainer part of the code is
probably the same as for maintaining the bitflag.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/