From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 22:46:33 -0700 From: "Martin J. Bligh" Reply-To: "Martin J. Bligh" Subject: Re: Why *not* rmap, anyway? Message-ID: <3070690259.1019429192@[10.10.2.3]> In-Reply-To: <3CC371CE.1EE4E264@earthlink.net> References: <3CC371CE.1EE4E264@earthlink.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Joseph A Knapka Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: >> Because it costs something to maintain the reverse map. >> If the cost exceeds the benefit, it's not worth it. That's > > Sure, but it's not obvious (is it?) that the rmap cost > exceeds the cost of scanning every process's virtual > address space looking for pages to unmap. No, but neither is it obvious that the cost of the virtual scanning exceeds the cost of rmap ;-) I think rmap will win in the end, but there's really only one way to prove it ;-) M. -- 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/