[lkml]   [2001]   [May]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 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...


Virtual memory is like a game you can't win;
However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose...

Send all your spam to (spam digging piggy)

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 12:52    [W:0.074 / U:0.140 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site