From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 14 May 2001 03:35:26 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 14 May 2001 03:35:17 -0400 Received: from mailout03.sul.t-online.com ([194.25.134.81]:47624 "EHLO mailout03.sul.t-online.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 14 May 2001 03:35:01 -0400 Date: 14 May 2001 09:05:00 +0200 From: kaih@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen) To: torvalds@transmeta.com cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <80qQpWhmw-B@khms.westfalen.de> In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: page_launder() bug X-Mailer: CrossPoint v3.12d.kh6 R/C435 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: Organisation? Me?! Are you kidding? In-Reply-To: X-No-Junk-Mail: I do not want to get *any* junk mail. Comment: Unsolicited commercial mail will incur an US$100 handling fee per received mail. X-Fix-Your-Modem: +++ATS2=255&WO1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org torvalds@transmeta.com (Linus Torvalds) wrote on 13.05.01 in : > And that's why I'd rather have generic support for _any_ page mapping that > wants to drop pages early than have specific logic for swapping. > Historically, we've always had very good results from trying to avoid > having special cases and instead trying to find what the common rules > might be. Just a thought: isn't a dead swap page a rather similar condition to a page in a file without any links, open file descriptors, or open mmaps? In both cases, writeback really makes no sense. MfG Kai