From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 14:13:14 -0500 (EST) From: "Benjamin C.R. LaHaise" Reply-To: "Benjamin C.R. LaHaise" Subject: Re: Ideas for memory management hackers. In-Reply-To: <199712101521.QAA25114@boole.fs100.suse.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: "Dr. Werner Fink" Cc: Zlatko.Calusic@CARNet.hr, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Wed, 10 Dec 1997, Dr. Werner Fink wrote: > In other words a better memory defragmentation is needed for 2.2, isn't it? > A simple approach could be an addition address check during the scans > in shrink_mmap (mm/filemap.c) instead of a freeing the first unused > (random) page. This could be used in the first few priorities to free pages > mostly useful for defragmentation. > > An other approach is Ben's anonymous ageing of physical task pages > found in http://www.kvack.org/~blah/patches/v2_1_47_ben1.gz ... > this approach gives a link of the pte of a page needed for ageing > the page. The past few times this has come up, the general argument from a few core people is that if one *really* cares to find the pte's pointing to a page, traversing the list of vma's attached to the inode, for which a pointer already exists, would be sufficient. Until I come up with something really kick-ass, I really doubt the pte-list stuff will be included. -ben