[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 21 Nov 2001, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > We only hold a ref count for the duration of swap_out_mm.
> > Not for the duration of the value in swap_mm.


> 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.

I agree that mmput would look nicer without the reference to swap_mm.
If you want to make a change here, I'd suggest replacing swap_mm
pointer by full dummy marker swap_mm, then mmput wouldn't need to
worry about it at all.

I didn't do it that way because I couldn't see where to initialize
the swap_mm structure without touching each architecture separately;
and I also wondered if there might be some stats gathering utility
out there which would get confused by finding a non-mm in the mmlist.


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:0.124 / U:0.068 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site