Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Wed, 21 Nov 2001 16:19:10 +0000 (GMT) | From | Hugh Dickins <> | Subject | Re: 2.4.14 + Bug in swap_out. |
| |
On Wed, 21 Nov 2001, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Wed, 21 Nov 2001, Hugh Dickins wrote: > > > > 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() ?
To speed swapoff, I changed the code back to how fork (see comment on "Add it to the mmlist" in fork.c old and new) and exec seemed to intend. I don't see see that I _obfuscated_ the code: what's so difficult about swap_mm?
> Exactly how bad was the "mmlist randomising" for swapoff() ?
It was unnecessary and counter-productive, I changed it. Exact number? No, but small.
Hugh
- 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/
|  |