From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 17:12:11 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: Background scanning change on 2.4.6-pre1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Marcelo Tosatti Cc: "David S. Miller" , Mike Galbraith , Zlatko Calusic , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > Yes. Now the problem is having swap space allocated with _NO_ pressure > may sound a bit weird to people. _I_ know that we're just allocating the > swap space, but not everybody does. Agreed. I would expect bug reports about "free" showing more swap, even though nothing necessarily actually got written out to disk. Note that we've actually already gotten many of those, this has been the 2.4.x behaviour all along. We'd just make it trigger even more easily (ie without having to have any real pressure at all). Hmm. Actually, the way 2.4.6-pre2 does things, "swap_out()" is only called from "refill_inactive()", while the background scanning actually calls into "refill_inactive_scan()" directly. So pre2 won't be adding stuff to the swap cache unless there is _some_ kind of pressure on it (namely "inactive_shortage()"). But it would be interesting to hear what people think of moving the swap_out() call into refill_inactive_scan() instead of doing it outside.. However, that would further confuse the meaning of the "target" and "maxscan" in the scanning phase. Linus -- 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/