From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Daniel Phillips Subject: Re: broken VM in 2.4.10-pre9 Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 11:45:44 +0200 References: <878A2048A35CD141AD5FC92C6B776E4907BB98@xchgind02.nsisw.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Message-Id: <20010919093828Z17304-2759+92@humbolt.nl.linux.org> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: "Eric W. Biederman" , Rob Fuller Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On September 17, 2001 06:03 pm, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > In linux we have avoided reverse maps (unlike the BSD's) which tends > to make the common case fast at the expense of making it more > difficult to handle times when the VM system is under extreme load and > we are swapping etc. What do you suppose is the cost of the reverse map? I get the impression you think it's more expensive than it is. -- Daniel -- 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-mm.org/