From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <48932E91.9050208@linux-foundation.org> Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 10:41:05 -0500 From: Christoph Lameter MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Update Unevictable LRU and Mlocked Pages documentation References: <1217452439.7676.26.camel@lts-notebook> <4891C8BC.1020509@linux-foundation.org> <1217515429.6507.7.camel@lts-notebook> <489313AC.3080605@linux-foundation.org> <20080801100623.4aae3e37@bree.surriel.com> <48931AD1.6040904@linux-foundation.org> <1217601369.6232.16.camel@lts-notebook> In-Reply-To: <1217601369.6232.16.camel@lts-notebook> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Lee Schermerhorn Cc: Rik van Riel , Andrew Morton , linux-mm , KOSAKI Motohiro , Kamezawa Hiroyuki , Nick Piggin List-ID: Lee Schermerhorn wrote: > Really? You think it would be OK to leave maybe gigabytes of mlocked > pages non-migratable? This would prevent defrag, hotplug, and cpuset Whatever made you think that I would have that view? I said that we have sufficient reasons I just do not think these reasons were given in the document. The main reason was not page migration. > The rationale that Rik mentioned--common handling, as much as > possible--was the second reason mentioned in the text. Perhaps my > wording could use some rework/clarification. Yes please. -- 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