[lkml]   [2001]   [Nov]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 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.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:13    [W:0.149 / U:0.960 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site