From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 22:37:01 +0200 (CEST) From: Andrea Arcangeli Subject: Re: filecache/swapcache questions In-Reply-To: <199906151551.IAA74604@google.engr.sgi.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Kanoj Sarcar Cc: Rik van Riel , linux-mm@kvack.org, sct@redhat.com List-ID: On Tue, 15 Jun 1999, Kanoj Sarcar wrote: >What I am trying to find out is if it is enough to put these pages >in the hash queue for swapper_inode, without really also putting >them in the inode queue for swapper_inode. Its not like we ever >"truncate" swapper_inode, that we will need to go thru its i_pages >list ... Yes, it's useless taking them into the swapper inode queue too. It's this way only because it uses a common interface. >PS: Q4: who uses rw_swap_page_nolock, and what is shmfs? Note that >rw_swap_page_nolock is the only caller that passes in non PageSwapCache >pages into rw_swap_page_base(), which otherwise could assume that >all pages passed into it are PageSwapCache, which would eliminate >the need for a seperate PG_swap_unlock_after bit. Please look at: ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/people/andrea/kernel-patches/2.2.10_andrea-VM5.gz Andrea Arcangeli -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm my@address' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://humbolt.geo.uu.nl/Linux-MM/