Re: What to expect with the 2.6 VM

[William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>]

On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 03:15:51PM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>> What complexity? Just unmap it if you can't allocate a pte_chain and
>> park it on the LRU.

On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 12:26:41AM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> the complexity in munlock to rebuild what you destroyed in mlock, that's
> linear at best (and for anonymous mappings there's no objrmap, plus
> objrmap isn't even linear but quadratic in its scan [hence the problem
> with it], though in practice it would be normally faster than the linear
> of the page scanning ;)

Computational complexity; okay.

It's not quadratic; at each munlock(), it's not necessary to do
anything more than:

for each page this mlock()'er (not _all_ mlock()'ers) maps of this thing
	grab some pagewise lock
	if pte_chain allocation succeeded
		add pte_chain
	else
		/* you'll need to put anon pages in swapcache in mlock() */
		unmap the page
	decrement lockcount
	if lockcount vanished
	park it on the LRU
	drop the pagewise lock

Individual mappers whose mappings are not mlock()'d add pte_chains when
faulting the things in just like before.


-- wli
--
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: <a href=mailto:"aart@kvack.org"> aart@kvack.org </a>