[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, 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() ?


DMCA, SSSCA, W3C? Who cares?

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 13:18    [W:0.072 / U:3.984 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site