From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2014 18:53:58 +0000 Message-ID: From: Charles Forsyth To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2411491753b04f3a43135 Subject: Re: [9fans] imagereclaim() Topicbox-Message-UUID: c0e999da-ead8-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 --001a11c2411491753b04f3a43135 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On 2 March 2014 18:46, wrote: > you'r right. the smartness of duppage() isnt really neccesary. we > can just leave the cache alone. when memory is low, newpage() will > uncache pages for us. > I also ripped out all the swap stuff. Either I'm on a machine with at last a Gb or two of RAM, or it's embedded and there's no paging disk, or both. --001a11c2411491753b04f3a43135 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

= On 2 March 2014 18:46, <cinap_lenrek@felloff.net> wr= ote:
you'r right. t= he smartness of duppage() isnt really neccesary. we
can just leave the cache alone. when memory is low, newpage() will
uncache pages for us.

I also ripped out all= the swap stuff. Either I'm on a machine with at last a Gb or two of RA= M, or it's embedded
and there's no = paging disk, or both.
--001a11c2411491753b04f3a43135--