On Thu, 30 Mar 2000, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:

On Thu, 30 Mar 2000, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:

quoted

[..] If something the higher is the priority the
harder we should shrink the cache (that's the opposite that the patch
achieves). Usually priority is always zero and the below check has no
effect. [..]

thinko, I noticed I was wrong about this, apologies (prio start with 6 and
0 is the most severe one).

anyway I keep not enjoying such path for all the other reasons. It should
at _least_ be done outside the loop before calculating `count`.

True. The only reason this check is inside shrink_mmap() is that we
may want to do the page aging on the LRU pages anyway because of
page replacement reasons. It will be interesting to see if moving
it out of the loop has any adverse effects or not...

cheers,

Rik
--
The Internet is not a network of computers. It is a network
of people. That is its real strength.

Wanna talk about the kernel?  irc.openprojects.net / #kernelnewbies
http://www.conectiva.com/		http://www.surriel.com/

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux.eu.org/Linux-MM/