On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 01:05:29PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 03:38:18PM -0800, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 02:23:28PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > In place of true activity counting, we walk the list of vma associated
> > > with an object managing
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 03:38:18PM -0800, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 02:23:28PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > In place of true activity counting, we walk the list of vma associated
> > with an object managing each on the vm's active/inactive list everytime
> > we call move-to-in
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 04:11:39PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 02:23:28PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > In place of true activity counting, we walk the list of vma associated
> > with an object managing each on the vm's active/inactive list everytime
> > we call move-to-i
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 02:23:28PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> In place of true activity counting, we walk the list of vma associated
> with an object managing each on the vm's active/inactive list everytime
> we call move-to-inactive. This depends upon the vma->mm_list being
> cleared after unbin
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 02:23:28PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> In place of true activity counting, we walk the list of vma associated
> with an object managing each on the vm's active/inactive list everytime
> we call move-to-inactive. This depends upon the vma->mm_list being
> cleared after unbin
In place of true activity counting, we walk the list of vma associated
with an object managing each on the vm's active/inactive list everytime
we call move-to-inactive. This depends upon the vma->mm_list being
cleared after unbinding, or else we run into difficulty when tracking
the object in multi
