On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, Rik van Riel wrote: > The attached patch should be correct. Oh. It vanished again when I replied to your mail. > Btw, why do we not call pagevec_strip on the pages on l_active? > I assume we want to reclaim their buffer heads, too... Yes we want to reduce buffer heads if we are over the limit. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- References:
- [PATCH] free swap space when (re)activating page
- From: Rik van Riel <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] free swap space when (re)activating page
- From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] free swap space when (re)activating page
- From: Rik van Riel <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] free swap space when (re)activating page
- From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] free swap space when (re)activating page
- From: Rik van Riel <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] free swap space when (re)activating page
- From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] free swap space when (re)activating page
- From: Rik van Riel <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] free swap space when (re)activating page
- From: Rik van Riel <[email protected]>
- [PATCH] free swap space when (re)activating page
- Prev by Date: Re: [discuss] [PATCH 1/3] x86_64: additions to the i386 alternative extensions to support x86_64 architecture
- Next by Date: Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] free swap space when (re)activating page
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] free swap space when (re)activating page
- Index(es):
 |