From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:15:51 -0700 From: William Lee Irwin III Subject: Re: What to expect with the 2.6 VM Message-ID: <20030702221551.GH26348@holomorphy.com> References: <20030701022516.GL3040@dualathlon.random> <20030702171159.GG23578@dualathlon.random> <461030000.1057165809@flay> <20030702174700.GJ23578@dualathlon.random> <20030702214032.GH20413@holomorphy.com> <20030702220246.GS23578@dualathlon.random> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030702220246.GS23578@dualathlon.random> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andrea Arcangeli Cc: "Martin J. Bligh" , Mel Gorman , Linux Memory Management List , Linux Kernel Mailing List List-ID: On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 12:02:46AM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > Now releasing the pte_chain during mlock would be a generic feature > orthogonal with the above I know, but I doubt you really care about it > for all other usages (also given the nearly unfixable complexity it > would introduce in munlock). What complexity? Just unmap it if you can't allocate a pte_chain and park it on the LRU. -- wli -- 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: aart@kvack.org