From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 13:19:28 -0200 From: Marcelo Tosatti Subject: Re: migration cache, updated Message-ID: <20041028151928.GA7562@logos.cnet> References: <20041026092535.GE24462@logos.cnet> <20041026.230110.21315175.taka@valinux.co.jp> <20041026122419.GD27014@logos.cnet> <20041027.224837.118287069.taka@valinux.co.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20041027.224837.118287069.taka@valinux.co.jp> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Hirokazu Takahashi Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, iwamoto@valinux.co.jp, haveblue@us.ibm.com, hugh@veritas.com List-ID: On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 10:48:37PM +0900, Hirokazu Takahashi wrote: > 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? Yep thats probably what caused your failures. I'll prepare a new patch. -- 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