Re: 2.4.14 + Bug in swap_out.

[Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br>]

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, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/