On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 11:16:44AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote: > We actually do that, in addition to the more active methods of capturing > the memory that we're about to remove.
This sounds the best way to go. btw, is this a different codebase from the one that Toshihiro is testing? > You're right, I don't really see a problem with ignoring those pages, at > least in the active migration code. We would, of course, like to keep > the number of things that we depend on good faith to get migrated to a > minimum, but things under I/O are the least of our problems. Indeed. It's very similar to locked pages. All pages can be pinned for a transient amount of time, either in the pte or with PG_pinned/PG_writeback (now perhaps Hugh found a way to drop the pin on the pte [I'm still unconvinced about that], but sure you're left with transient pinning with PG_locked or PG_writeback). > The only thing we might want to do is put something in the rawio code to > look for the PG_capture pages to ensure that it gives the migration code > a shot at them every once in a while (when I/O is not in flight, > obviously). If there are persistent usages PG_capture sounds a good idea. Perhaps the whole point that Toshihiro has problem with is that there are really persistent users that require PG_capture? He mentioned direct IO, that's not a long time, if something core dump could be a long time. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/