Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 18:51:14 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 18:51:04 -0500 Received: from tsukuba.m17n.org ([192.47.44.130]:33945 "EHLO tsukuba.m17n.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 18:50:45 -0500 Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 08:50:35 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <200102132350.IAA07667@mule.m17n.org> From: NIIBE Yutaka To: Russell King Cc: marcelo@conectiva.com.br (Marcelo Tosatti), torvalds@transmeta.com (Linus Torvalds), alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk (Alan Cox), linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org (lkml) Subject: Re: [PATCH] swapin flush cache bug In-Reply-To: <200102131116.f1DBGFx02086@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <200102131053.TAA11808@mule.m17n.org> <200102131116.f1DBGFx02086@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Russell King wrote: > Unless someone else (Rik/DaveM) says otherwise, it is my understanding > that any IO for page P will only ever be a write to disk. Therefore, > when you get a copy of the page from the swap cache, the physical memory > for that page is the same as it was when the process was using it last. [...] > The data from memory will still be up to date though. However, I agree > that you will end up with cache aliases. I will also end up with cache > aliases. The question now is, do these aliases really matter? > > On my caches, the answer is no because they're not marked dirty, and > therefore will get dropped from the cache without writeback to memory. > > If your cache doesn't write back clean cache data to memory, then you > should also behave well. Yes, that's the difference. It's write back cache, in my case. -- - 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/