Subject: Re: anon allocation
To: YAMAMOTO Takashi <email@example.com>
From: Chuck Silvers <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 04/30/2005 16:56:10
this looks pretty good.
adding the extra members to the amap is probably ok now that we are
more aggressive about merging compatible map entries. (at least,
I think code will minimize the impact of this.)
a few comments on the specific changes:
- we shouldn't ever start over from the beginning, use a marker entry
for that case too.
- what is the new XXX comment for? how would you want to address it?
- get rid of the union that is no longer needed.
- reformat the now-oddly-wrapped comment.
On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 06:44:13PM +0900, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
> if no one objects, i'll change how anons are allocated.
> - allocate anons dynamically.
> - use pool(9). for swapoff, traverse anons via amaps.
> (see the attached diff for details)
> YAMAMOTO Takashi