Re: MM deadlock [was: Re: arca-vm-8...]

Rik van Riel (riel@humbolt.geo.uu.nl)
Wed, 13 Jan 1999 15:59:49 +0100 (CET)

On Wed, 13 Jan 1999, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jan 1999, Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> > IIRC this facility was in the original swapin readahead
> > implementation. That only leaves the question who removed
> > it and why :))
>
> There's another thing I completly disagree and that I just removed here.
> It's the alignment of the offset field. I see no one point in going back
> instead of only doing real read_ahead_.
>
> Maybe I am missing something?

Yes, you are:

- aligned reads make sure you don't do smallish readaheads of
only 1 block (because you've already got the rest)
- there are programs that move through the data backwards or
tilewise
- in allocating swap space it just doesn't make sense to read
into the next swap 'region'

Rik -- If a Microsoft product fails, who do you sue?
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Linux memory management tour guide. riel@nl.linux.org |
| Scouting Vries cubscout leader. http://www.nl.linux.org/~riel |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/