From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2001 10:14:22 -0300 (BRST) From: Rik van Riel Subject: Re: VM change in 2.4.10-pre3: don't call swap_out unless shortage In-Reply-To: <3B916FF3.6040300@ucla.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Benjamin Redelings I Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Sat, 1 Sep 2001, Benjamin Redelings I wrote: > I guess what I am really wondering is if there is some way that we > could continue calling refill_inactive_scan while never calling > swap_out (or only rarely). You're absolutely right. Guess why Linus moved swap_out() to before refill_inactive_scan() in the first place ? ;) > Anyway, thanks for any explanation of what I'm missing! > > -BenRI, looking forwards to reverse mapping... I think you haven't missed a single detail here. Reverse mappings would indeed get rid of the whole unbalanced mess we have right now. regards, Rik -- IA64: a worthy successor to i860. http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/ Send all your spam to aardvark@nl.linux.org (spam digging piggy) -- 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/