From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail144.messagelabs.com (mail144.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.51]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 011206B01F4 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 11:14:40 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 16:14:17 +0100 From: Mel Gorman Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/14] mm,migration: Allow the migration of PageSwapCache pages Message-ID: <20100421151417.GK30306@csn.ul.ie> References: <1271797276-31358-1-git-send-email-mel@csn.ul.ie> <1271797276-31358-5-git-send-email-mel@csn.ul.ie> <20100421150037.GJ30306@csn.ul.ie> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Andrew Morton , Andrea Arcangeli , Adam Litke , Avi Kivity , David Rientjes , Minchan Kim , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , KOSAKI Motohiro , Rik van Riel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 10:05:21AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Wed, 21 Apr 2010, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > No, remap_swapcache could just be called "remap". If it's 0, it's > > considered unsafe to remap the page. > > Call this "can_remap"? > can_do - ba dum tisch. While you are looking though, maybe you can confirm something for me. 1. Is leaving a migration PTE like this behind reasonable? (I think yes particularly as the page was already unmapped so it's not a new fault incurred) 2. Is the BUG_ON check in include/linux/swapops.h#migration_entry_to_page() now wrong? (I think yes, but I'm not sure and I'm having trouble verifying it) Thanks. -- Mel Gorman Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab -- 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