From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: kanoj@google.engr.sgi.com (Kanoj Sarcar) Message-Id: <200004080011.RAA21305@google.engr.sgi.com> Subject: Re: [patch] take 2 Re: PG_swap_entry bug in recent kernels Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 17:11:15 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: from "Andrea Arcangeli" at Apr 08, 2000 01:26:48 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andrea Arcangeli Cc: Ben LaHaise , riel@nl.linux.org, Linus Torvalds , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: > > On Fri, 7 Apr 2000, Kanoj Sarcar wrote: > > >[..] you should try stress > >testing with swapdevice removal with a large number of runnable > >processes.[..] > > swapdevice removal during swapin activity is broken right now as far I can > see. I'm trying to fix that stuff right now. Be aware that I already have a patch for this. I have been meaning to clean it up against latest 2.3 and submit it to Linus ... FWIW, it has been broken since 2.2. > > >Also, did you have a good reason to want to make lookup_swap_cache() > >invoke find_get_page(), and not find_lock_page()? I coded some of the > > Using find_lock_page and then unlocking the page is meaningless. If you > are going to unconditionally unlock the page then you shouldn't lock it in > first place. I will have to think a little bit about why the code does what it does currently. I will let you know ... Kanoj > > Andrea > -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux.eu.org/Linux-MM/