Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 23:17:01 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 23:17:00 -0400 Received: from [209.184.141.190] ([209.184.141.190]:36038 "HELO UberGeek") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 23:16:59 -0400 Subject: Re: vm fixes for 2.4.19rc1 From: Austin Gonyou To: Andrea Arcangeli Cc: Marcelo Tosatti , Hugh Dickins , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds In-Reply-To: <20020627201413.GD1457@inspiron.ols.wavesec.org> References: <20020627201413.GD1457@inspiron.ols.wavesec.org> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.1.0.99 (Preview Release) Date: 27 Jun 2002 22:19:14 -0500 Message-Id: <1025234354.2087.10.camel@UberGeek> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1012 Lines: 22 For something like DB work, would this patch be *too* aggressive on freeing memory/cache as to introduced increased latency there? Just curious, I'm all for using *any* good VM changes. On Thu, 2002-06-27 at 15:14, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > some fix for 2.4.19rc1 (btw, the lru_cache_del() in the LRU path is > needed in 2.5 too and it's also more efficient than the > page_cache_release, see ptrace freeing the anon pages with put_page(), > it will not pass through page_cache_release and it will trigger the > PageLRU check that __free_pages_ok isn't capable to handle in 2.5, I > will make a full vm update for 2.5 [in small pieces based on post-Andrew > split of the monolithic patch] in the next days anyways): -- Austin Gonyou - 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/