Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sun, 13 May 2001 16:39:03 -0300 (BRST) | From | Rik van Riel <> | Subject | Re: page_launder() bug |
| |
On Sun, 13 May 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sun, 13 May 2001, Rik van Riel wrote: > > > > Why the hell would we want this ? > You've missed about half the discussion, it seems..
True, I was away at a conference ;)
> > If the page is referenced, it should be moved back to the > > active list and should never be a candidate for writeout. > > Wrong. > > There are > (a) dead swap pages, where it doesn't matter one _whit_ whether it is > referenced or not, because we know with 100% certainty that nobody > will ever reference it again. This _may_ be true in other cases too, > but we know it is true for swap pages that have lost all references. > (b) filesystems and memory allocators that might want to get feedback on > the fact that we're even _looking_ at their pages, and that we're > aging them down. They might easily use these things for starting > background activity like deciding to close the logs.. > > The high-level VM layer simply doesn't have that kind of information.
Agreed. I'd like to make sure, however, that we keep the high-level VM cleanly separated from the lower layers so we can keep the VM maintainable and predictable...
regards,
Rik -- Virtual memory is like a game you can't win; However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose...
http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/
Send all your spam to aardvark@nl.linux.org (spam digging piggy)
- 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/
|  |