From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 22:48:37 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <20041027.224837.118287069.taka@valinux.co.jp> Subject: Re: migration cache, updated From: Hirokazu Takahashi In-Reply-To: <20041026122419.GD27014@logos.cnet> References: <20041026092535.GE24462@logos.cnet> <20041026.230110.21315175.taka@valinux.co.jp> <20041026122419.GD27014@logos.cnet> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, iwamoto@valinux.co.jp, haveblue@us.ibm.com, hugh@veritas.com List-ID: Hi, > > BTW, I wonder how the migration code avoid to choose some pages > > on LRU, which may have count == 0. This may happen the pages > > are going to be removed. We have to care about it. > > AFAICS its already done by __steal_page_from_lru(), which is used > by grab_capturing_pages(): : > Pages with reference count zero will be not be moved to the page > list, and truncated pages seem to be handled nicely later on the > migration codepath. Ok, I see no problem about this with the current implementation. BTW, now I'm just wondering migration_duplicate() should be called from copy_page_range(), since page-migration and fork() may work at the same time. What do you think about this? Thanks, Hirokazu Takahashi. -- 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