Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 21 Nov 2001 13:39:18 -0200 (BRST) | From | Rik van Riel <> | Subject | Re: 2.4.14 + Bug in swap_out. |
| |
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 from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |