On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >
> > > I agree that the return value of swap_out() is fairly meaningless. It's
> > > been fairly meaningless for a long time now, and it's entirely possible
> > > that the "while (swap_out())" loop should be just something like
> > >
> > > /* Scan the VM space, try to clean up the page tables a bit */
> > > for (i = 0 ; i <= nr_threads >> priority; i++)
> > > swap_out(gfp_mask);
> >
> > The problem with this is that it means that page aging of
> > the mapped active pages is no longer balanced against the
> > aging of the unmapped active pages.
>
> Is there any reason to not just remove the lines
>
> if (!onlist)
> /* The page is still mapped, so it can't be freeable... */
> age_page_down_ageonly(page);
>
> /*
> * If the page is in active use by us, or if the page
> * is in active use by others, don't unmap it or
> * (worse) start unneeded IO.
> */
> if (page->age > 0)
> goto out_failed;
>
> from vmscan?
>
> They look like a complete hack, although an understandable one
> from the time when the virtual memory scan used to actually do
> IO as well.
>
> These days, if you think of the VM scanning as just a "shrink
> the page tables" operation, the down-aging doesn't make much
> sense. That will happen once the page has been moved to the
> lists, no?
Hmmmm, I'm not sure ...
I can't quite put my finger on it, but my gut feeling
says that removing this lines could unbalance the page
aging and/or cause other nasties.
Then again, in theory the current VM should already be
unbalanced and we haven't felt any bad effects yet ;)
regards,
Rik
--
Hollywood goes for world dumbination,
Trailer at 11.
http://www.surriel.com/
http://www.conectiva.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com.br/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
