> > 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 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/