From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 8 May 2001 02:50:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 8 May 2001 02:50:31 -0400 Received: from pizda.ninka.net ([216.101.162.242]:52909 "EHLO pizda.ninka.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 8 May 2001 02:50:20 -0400 From: "David S. Miller" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15095.38698.313444.486904@pizda.ninka.net> Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 23:50:18 -0700 (PDT) To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Marcelo Tosatti , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: page_launder() bug In-Reply-To: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 13) "Crater Lake" XEmacs Lucid Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Linus Torvalds writes: > My most favourite approach by far is to just remove the magic for > different writepage's altogether, and just unconditionally do a > writepage. But passing in enough information so that the writepage can > come to the right decision. ... > In fact, it might even clean stuff up. Who knows? At least > page_launder() would not need to know about magic dead swap pages, because > the decision would be entirely in writepage(). Sure this would work. The only downside would be that the formerly "quick case" in the loop of dealing with referenced pages would now need to go inside the page lock. It's probably a non-issue... Later, David S. Miller davem@redhat.com