From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761224AbZEGO3t (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 May 2009 10:29:49 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757055AbZEGO3j (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 May 2009 10:29:39 -0400 Received: from smtp3.ultrahosting.com ([74.213.175.254]:48135 "EHLO smtp.ultrahosting.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756884AbZEGO3i (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 May 2009 10:29:38 -0400 Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 10:18:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Christoph Lameter X-X-Sender: cl@qirst.com To: Peter Zijlstra cc: Wu Fengguang , Andrew Morton , Rik van Riel , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "tytso@mit.edu" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , Elladan , Nick Piggin , Johannes Weiner , KOSAKI Motohiro Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm] vmscan: make mapped executable pages the first class citizen In-Reply-To: <1241705702.11251.156.camel@twins> Message-ID: References: <20090430072057.GA4663@eskimo.com> <20090430174536.d0f438dd.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20090430205936.0f8b29fc@riellaptop.surriel.com> <20090430181340.6f07421d.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20090430215034.4748e615@riellaptop.surriel.com> <20090430195439.e02edc26.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <49FB01C1.6050204@redhat.com> <20090501123541.7983a8ae.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20090503031539.GC5702@localhost> <1241432635.7620.4732.camel@twins> <20090507121101.GB20934@localhost> <1241705702.11251.156.camel@twins> User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (DEB 962 2008-03-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 7 May 2009, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > It re-instates the young bit for PROT_EXEC pages, so that they will only > be paged when they are really cold, or there is severe pressure. But they are rescanned until then. Really cold means what exactly? I do a back up of a few hundred gigabytes and do not use firefox while the backup is ongoing. Will the firefox pages still be in memory or not? > This simply gives them an edge over regular data. I don't think the > extra scanning is a problem, since you rarely have huge amounts of > executable pages around. > > mlock()'ing all code just doesn't sound like a good alternative. Another possibility may be to put the exec pages on the mlock list and scan the list if under extreme duress?