Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 11:17:36 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 11:17:26 -0500 Received: from bay-bridge.veritas.com ([143.127.3.10]:7280 "EHLO svldns02.veritas.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 11:17:22 -0500 Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 16:19:10 +0000 (GMT) From: Hugh Dickins To: Rik van Riel cc: "Eric W. Biederman" , "David S. Miller" , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.4.14 + Bug in swap_out. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 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, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Wed, 21 Nov 2001, Hugh Dickins wrote: > > > > 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() ? To speed swapoff, I changed the code back to how fork (see comment on "Add it to the mmlist" in fork.c old and new) and exec seemed to intend. I don't see see that I _obfuscated_ the code: what's so difficult about swap_mm? > Exactly how bad was the "mmlist randomising" for swapoff() ? It was unnecessary and counter-productive, I changed it. Exact number? No, but small. Hugh - 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/