From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: William Lee Irwin III Subject: Re: [RFC] My research agenda for 2.7 Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 18:10:31 -0700 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20030625011031.GP26348@holomorphy.com> References: <200306250111.01498.phillips@arcor.de> <20030625004758.GO26348@holomorphy.com> <200306250307.18291.phillips@arcor.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200306250307.18291.phillips@arcor.de> To: Daniel Phillips Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-Id: linux-mm.kvack.org On Wednesday 25 June 2003 02:47, William Lee Irwin III wrote: >> Per struct address_space? This is an unnecessary limitation. On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 03:07:18AM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote: > It's a sensible limitation, it keeps the radix tree lookup simple. It severely limits its usefulness. Dropping in a more flexible data structure should be fine. On Wednesday 25 June 2003 02:47, William Lee Irwin III wrote: >> This gives me the same data structure proliferation chills as bh's. On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 03:07:18AM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote: > It's not nearly as bad. There is no distinction between subpage and base > struct page for almost all page operations, e.g., locking, IO, data access. But those are code sanitation issues. You need to make sure this doesn't explode on PAE. -- wli