Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 10:39:57 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 10:39:38 -0500 Received: from perninha.conectiva.com.br ([200.250.58.156]:23306 "HELO perninha.conectiva.com.br") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 10:39:34 -0500 Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 13:39:18 -0200 (BRST) From: Rik van Riel X-X-Sender: To: Hugh Dickins Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" , "David S. Miller" , , Subject: Re: 2.4.14 + Bug in swap_out. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: X-spambait: aardvark@kernelnewbies.org X-spammeplease: aardvark@nl.linux.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 21 Nov 2001, Hugh Dickins wrote: > > 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. Urmmm, so the code was obfuscated in order to optimise swapoff() ? Exactly how bad was the "mmlist randomising" for swapoff() ? regards, Rik -- DMCA, SSSCA, W3C? Who cares? http://thefreeworld.net/ http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/ - 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/