From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 9 May 2001 17:09:06 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 9 May 2001 17:08:56 -0400 Received: from pizda.ninka.net ([216.101.162.242]:10379 "EHLO pizda.ninka.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 9 May 2001 17:08:48 -0400 From: "David S. Miller" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15097.45528.322497.299933@pizda.ninka.net> Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 14:08:40 -0700 (PDT) To: Marcelo Tosatti Cc: Linus Torvalds , lkml Subject: Re: page_launder() bug In-Reply-To: In-Reply-To: <15097.41719.48461.215024@pizda.ninka.net> 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 Marcelo Tosatti writes: > > Let me state it a different way, how is the new writepage() framework > > going to do things like ignore the referenced bit during page_launder > > for dead swap pages? > > Its not able to ignore the referenced bit. > > I know we want that, but I can't see any clean way of doing that. Unfortunately, one way would involve pushing the referenced bit check into the writepage() method. But that is the only place we have the kind of information necessary to make these decisions. This is exactly the kind of issue Linus and myself were talking about when the "cost analysis" parts of thie discussion began. Later, David S. Miller davem@redhat.com