Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751506AbWCXOgz (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Mar 2006 09:36:55 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751502AbWCXOgz (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Mar 2006 09:36:55 -0500 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:47817 "EHLO mx2.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751495AbWCXOgy (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Mar 2006 09:36:54 -0500 To: "Stone Wang" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [PATCH][0/8] (Targeting 2.6.17) Posix memory locking and balanced mlock-LRU semantic References: From: Andi Kleen Date: 24 Mar 2006 15:36:46 +0100 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 550 Lines: 9 "Stone Wang" writes: > mlocked areas. > 2. More consistent LRU semantics in Memory Management. > Mlocked pages is placed on a separate LRU list: Wired List. If it's mlocked why don't you just called it Mlocked list? Strange jargon makes the patch cooler? Also in meminfo -Andi - 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/