Subject: Re: anon allocation
To: YAMAMOTO Takashi <>
From: Chuck Silvers <>
List: tech-kern
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?

struct vm_anon
 - 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:
> hi,
> 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