On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Jonathan Morton wrote:
> > >There seems to be one more reason, take a look at the function
> > >read_swap_cache_async() in swap_state.c, around line 240:
> > >
> > >/*
> > > * Add it to the swap cache and read i
On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Jonathan Morton wrote:
> >There seems to be one more reason, take a look at the function
> >read_swap_cache_async() in swap_state.c, around line 240:
> >
> >/*
> > * Add it to the swap cache and read its contents.
> > */
> >lock_page(new_page);
>There seems to be one more reason, take a look at the function
>read_swap_cache_async() in swap_state.c, around line 240:
>
>/*
> * Add it to the swap cache and read its contents.
> */
>lock_page(new_page);
>add_to_swap_cache(new_page, entry);
>rw_s
On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> the reason why lookup_swap_cache() locks the page is due to a valid race,
> but the solution excessive: it tries to keep the lookup atomic against
> destroyers of the page, page_launder() and reclaim_page(). But it does not
> really need the page lock for
background: sometime during the 2.4 cycle swapping performance and the
efficiency of the swapcache dropped significantly. I believe i finally
managed to find the problem that caused poor swapping performance and
annoying 'sudden process stoppage' symptoms.
(to those people who are experiencing s
5 matches
Mail list logo
