From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 12:05:14 -0700 From: William Lee Irwin III Subject: Re: vmscan.c heuristic adjustment for smaller systems Message-ID: <20040418190514.GC743@holomorphy.com> References: <20040418174743.GC28744@flea> <20040418175324.GB743@holomorphy.com> <20040418180614.GA29280@flea> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040418180614.GA29280@flea> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Marc Singer Cc: linux-mm List-ID: On Sun, Apr 18, 2004 at 10:53:24AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote: >> Well, there's a point of some kind to it. On Sun, Apr 18, 2004 at 11:06:14AM -0700, Marc Singer wrote: > I don't think I understand what you mean. Feeding the replacement heuristics better input tends to get better results, or something on that order. On Sun, Apr 18, 2004 at 10:53:24AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote: >> Actually ptep_to_address() should find the uvaddr for you. On Sun, Apr 18, 2004 at 11:06:14AM -0700, Marc Singer wrote: > The set_pte function is assembler coded. For a proof of concept, I am > willing to be blunt. If you're stuck examining struct page you might want to keep it in C for a while. On Sun, Apr 18, 2004 at 10:53:24AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote: >> I'm not going to tell ou what your results are. On Sun, Apr 18, 2004 at 11:06:14AM -0700, Marc Singer wrote: > Perhaps, though, this isn't such a bad result. It could mean that the > lazy TLB flush is OK and that my bug is something different. Or, it > could mean that I'm still doing the flush incorrectly and that that is > the correct solution were it done right. Was this the one-liner in vmscan.c from earlier? -- wli -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: aart@kvack.org