From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 04:19:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 04:18:50 -0400 Received: from ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com ([166.70.28.69]:45929 "EHLO flinx.biederman.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 04:18:41 -0400 To: Rik van Riel Cc: Alan Cox , "Dirk W. Steinberg" , Ingo Oeser , , Subject: Re: Swapping for diskless nodes In-Reply-To: From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Date: 10 Aug 2001 02:11:46 -0600 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/20.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Rik van Riel writes: > On 9 Aug 2001, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > > I don't know about that. We already can swap over just about > > everything because we can swap over the loopback device. > > Last I looked the loopback device could deadlock your > system without you needing to swap over it ;) It wouldn't suprise me. But the fact remains that in 2.4 we allow it. And if we allw it there is little excuse for doing it wrong. Actually except for network cases it looks easier to prevent deadlocks on the swapping path than with the loop back devices. We can call aops->prepare_write_out when we place the page in the swap cache to make certain we aren't over a hole in a file, and there is room in the filesystem to store the data. Eric