Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 16:33:51 +0100 From: Steve O'Hara-Smith <steve@sohara.org> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Cc: galtsev@kicp.uchicago.edu Subject: Re: Unusual Question Message-ID: <20170710163351.a347713b6d8f64e141d1d9f2@sohara.org> In-Reply-To: <26749.128.135.52.6.1499700385.squirrel@cosmo.uchicago.edu> References: <888578F8-AD68-4993-823C-152789F3C929@mail.sermon-archive.info> <52627.76.193.16.95.1499645892.squirrel@cosmo.uchicago.edu> <BF16E1CF-A889-4734-981E-2B68115FCD3C@mail.sermon-archive.info> <20170710052228.GA2338@c720-r314251> <20170710090547.15ee3afc07c09955ba621ae1@sohara.org> <26749.128.135.52.6.1499700385.squirrel@cosmo.uchicago.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 10:26:25 -0500 (CDT) "Valeri Galtsev" <galtsev@kicp.uchicago.edu> wrote: > I believe, the kernel addresses swap not by addressing sectors on raw > device covering the whole physical drive, but as "relative sectors" > through swap partition device. Sure, but I doubt it reads the partition table again after it has it read the first time, that's an obvious thing to cache. > If I'm right, once drive partition table is > gone reading swap will fail and panic kernel. I doubt it, the partition table should be cached in memory, otherwise yes that would panic the kernel, but reading the partition table every time a page needs swapping in would be stupidly inefficient so I don't believe it happens. > But the suggestion you made in another post: to make Not my suggestion, it's a sensible one but I don't think it's needed. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20170710163351.a347713b6d8f64e141d1d9f2>