From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from burns.conectiva (burns.conectiva [10.0.0.4]) by perninha.conectiva.com.br (Postfix) with SMTP id 1EBF338CBF for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 12:39:31 -0300 (EST) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 13:39:18 -0200 (BRST) From: Rik van Riel Subject: Re: 2.4.14 + Bug in swap_out. 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: Hugh Dickins Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" , "David S. Miller" , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, 21 Nov 2001, Hugh Dickins wrote: > > In that case, why can't we just take the next mm from > > init_mm and just "roll over" our mm to the back of the > > list once we're done with it ? > > No. That's how it used to be, that's what I changed it from. > > fork and exec are well ordered in how they add to the mmlist, > and that ordering (children after parent) suited swapoff nicely, > to minimize duplication of a swapent while it's being unused; > except swap_out randomized the order by cycling init_mm around it. Urmmm, so the code was obfuscated in order to optimise swapoff() ? Exactly how bad was the "mmlist randomising" for swapoff() ? regards, Rik -- DMCA, SSSCA, W3C? Who cares? http://thefreeworld.net/ http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/ -- 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/