On Wed, 2012-03-07 at 10:23 +0200, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 12:36:21AM +, Luke Marsden wrote:
I'm trying to confirm that, on a system with no pages swapped out, that
the following is a true statement:
a page is accounted for in active + inactive
On Wed, 2012-03-07 at 13:33 +0100, J B wrote:
On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 10:23:38 +0200, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 12:36:21AM +, Luke Marsden wrote:
...
I'm trying to confirm that, on a system with no pages swapped out, that
the following is a true statement
Thanks for your email, Chuck.
Conversely, if a page *does not* occur in the resident
memory of any process, it must not occupy any space in the active +
inactive lists.
Hmm...if a process gets swapped out entirely, the pages for it will be moved
to the cache list, flushed, and then
