From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com Message-ID: <16909246.1195259556869.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 09:32:36 +0900 (JST) Subject: Re: Re: page_referenced() and VM_LOCKED In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <473D1BC9.8050904@google.com> <20071116144641.f12fd610.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Hugh Dickins Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Ethan Solomita , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: >> > I would've thought the point was to treat locked pages as active, never >> > pushing them into the inactive list, but since that's not quite what's >> > happening I was hoping someone could give me a clue. > >Rik and Lee and others have proposed that we keep VM_LOCKED pages >off both active and inactive lists: that seems a better way forward. > agreed. >> Then, "VM_LOCKED & not referenced" anon page is added to swap cache >> (before pushed back to active list) >> >> Seems intended ? > >Not intended, no. Rather a waste of swap. How about this patch? > seems nice. I'd like to do some test in the next week, Thanks, -Kame -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org