From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Weiner Subject: Re: [rfc] mm: more likely reclaim MADV_SEQUENTIAL mappings References: <87d4hugrwm.fsf@saeurebad.de> <48FDE9E9.5020805@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 17:20:18 +0200 In-Reply-To: <48FDE9E9.5020805@redhat.com> (Rik van Riel's message of "Tue, 21 Oct 2008 10:40:41 -0400") Message-ID: <874p36gekt.fsf@saeurebad.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Rik van Riel Cc: Nick Piggin , Andrew Morton , KOSAKI Motohiro , Linux MM Mailing List List-ID: Rik van Riel writes: > Johannes Weiner wrote: > >> I'm afraid this is now quite a bit more aggressive than the earlier >> version. When the fault path did a mark_page_access(), we wouldn't >> reclaim a page when it has been faulted into several MADV_SEQUENTIAL >> mappings but now we ignore *every* activity through such a mapping. >> >> What do you think? >> >> Perhaps we should note a reference if there are two or more accesses >> through sequentially read mappings? > > That can be easily accomplished by dropping the memory.c > part of your patch. I thought about that, but wouldn't we count a reference in the chain fault -> unmap -> page_referenced() opposed to counting _no_ reference in fault -> page_referenced() -> ... -> unmap ? Hannes -- 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