On Wed, 4 Apr 2007, Dan Aloni wrote:
>
> To refine that example, you could replace the file with a large anonymous
> memory pool and a lot of swap space committed to it. In that case - with
> no ZERO_PAGE, would the kernel needlessly swap-out the zeroed pages?
> Perhaps it's an example too far-fetched to worth considering...
Nice point, not far-fetched, though I don't know whether it's worth
worrying about or not. Yes, as things stand, the kernel will
needlessly write them out to swap: because we're in the habit of
marking a writable pte as dirty, partly to save the processor (how
i386-centric am I being?) from having to do that work just after,
partly because of some race too ancient for me to know anything
about - do_no_page (though not the function in question here) says:
* This silly early PAGE_DIRTY setting removes a race
* due to the bad i386 page protection. But it's valid
* for other architectures too.
Maybe Nick will decide to not to mark the readfaults as dirty.
Hugh
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
