On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 1:45 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue 10-03-20 15:48:31, Dave Hansen wrote: > > Maybe instead of just punting on MADV_PAGEOUT for map_count>1 we should > > only let it affect the *local* process. We could still put the page in > > the swap cache, we just wouldn't go do the rmap walk. > > Is it really worth medling with the reclaim code and special case > MADV_PAGEOUT there? I mean it is quite reasonable to have an initial > implementation that doesn't really touch shared pages because that can > lead to all sorts of hard to debug and unexpected problems. So I would > much rather go with a simple patch to check map count first and see > whether somebody actually cares about those shared pages and go from > there. > > Minchan, do you want to take my diff and turn it into the proper patch > or should I do it. > What about the remote_madvise(MADV_PAGEOUT)? Will your patch disable the pageout from that code path as well for pages with mapcount > 1?
