From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760874AbXGKHvU (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Jul 2007 03:51:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757109AbXGKHvK (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Jul 2007 03:51:10 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:33019 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757059AbXGKHvJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Jul 2007 03:51:09 -0400 Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 09:50:53 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Nick Piggin Cc: Ray Lee , Matthew Hawkins , Andrew Morton , Con Kolivas , ck list , Paul Jackson , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: swap prefetch (Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23) Message-ID: <20070711075053.GA20094@elte.hu> References: <20070710013152.ef2cd200.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <200707102015.44004.kernel@kolivas.org> <20070710181419.6d1b2f7e.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <4694683B.3060705@yahoo.com.au> <2c0942db0707102247n3b6e5933i9803a2161d6c00b1@mail.gmail.com> <469470A3.5040606@yahoo.com.au> <2c0942db0707102304s3f666eceib454043c716e2178@mail.gmail.com> <46947784.6050100@yahoo.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <46947784.6050100@yahoo.com.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.14 (2007-02-12) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.0.3 -1.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Nick Piggin wrote: > Regarding swap prefetching. I'm not going to argue for or against it > anymore because I have really stopped following where it is up to, for > now. If the code and the results meet the standard that Andrew wants > then I don't particularly mind if he merges it. I have tested it and have read the code, and it looks fine to me. (i've reported my test results elsewhere already) We should include this in v2.6.23. Acked-by: Ingo Molnar Ingo