On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 18:30:23 -0700 Ken Chen <kenchen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 5:11 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki > <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I'd like to vote for batching. > > Batch mode isn't going to add much value because the effect of > accessed bit is already deferred. There are two outcome: (1) the tlb > mapping is already flushed due to capacity conflict or (2) process > context'ed out. You would want to transfer accessed bit from pte to > page table, but flushing TLB on a already deferred operation seems not > that useful. > Hmm. Without flushing anywhere in memory reclaim path, a process which cause page fault and enter vmscan will not see his own recent access bit on pages in LRU ? I think it should be flushed at least once.. Thanks, -Kame -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>