Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 8 May 2001 15:53:26 -0300 (BRT) | From | Marcelo Tosatti <> | Subject | Re: page_launder() bug |
| |
On Tue, 8 May 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Mon, 7 May 2001, David S. Miller wrote: > > > > The only downside would be that the formerly "quick case" in the loop > > of dealing with referenced pages would now need to go inside the page > > lock. It's probably a non-issue... > > It might easily be an issue. That function will touch pretty much every > single page that we ever want to free, and it might be worthwhile to know > what the pressure is. > > However, the point is probably moot. I found a problem with my approach: > using writepage() to try to get rid of swap cache pages early on (ie not > doing the "if it is accessed, put it back on the list" thing early) > doesn't work all that well: it doesn't handle the case of _clean_ > swap-cache pages at all. And those can be quite common, although usually > not in the simple benchmarks which just dirty as quickly as they can. > > [ The way to get a clean swap-cache page is to dirty it early in the > process lifetime, and then use the page read-only later on over > time. Maybe it's not common enough to worry about. ]
What about swapin readahead ?
- 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/
|  |