On Tue, 2016-09-27 at 02:11 +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 05:23:29PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2016-09-26 at 13:58 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > > > > > Is there really any reason for that incredible indirection? Do we > > > really want to make the page_waitqueue() be a per-zone thing at > > > all? > > > Especially since all those wait-queues won't even be *used* > > > unless > > > there is actual IO going on and people are really getting into > > > contention on the page lock.. Why isn't the page_waitqueue() just > > > one > > > statically sized array? > > > > Why are we touching file pages at all during fork()? > > We are not. > Unless the vma has private pages (vma->anon_vma is not NULL). > > See first lines for copy_page_range(). Ahhh, indeed. I thought I remembered an optimization like that. -- All Rights Reversed.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part