From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 00:26:41 +0200 From: Andrea Arcangeli Subject: Re: What to expect with the 2.6 VM Message-ID: <20030702222641.GU23578@dualathlon.random> References: <20030701022516.GL3040@dualathlon.random> <20030702171159.GG23578@dualathlon.random> <461030000.1057165809@flay> <20030702174700.GJ23578@dualathlon.random> <20030702214032.GH20413@holomorphy.com> <20030702220246.GS23578@dualathlon.random> <20030702221551.GH26348@holomorphy.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030702221551.GH26348@holomorphy.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: William Lee Irwin III , "Martin J. Bligh" , Mel Gorman , Linux Memory Management List , Linux Kernel Mailing List List-ID: On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 03:15:51PM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > What complexity? Just unmap it if you can't allocate a pte_chain and > park it on the LRU. the complexity in munlock to rebuild what you destroyed in mlock, that's linear at best (and for anonymous mappings there's no objrmap, plus objrmap isn't even linear but quadratic in its scan [hence the problem with it], though in practice it would be normally faster than the linear of the page scanning ;) Andrea -- 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