From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 21:06:08 -0700 From: William Lee Irwin III Subject: Re: [patch 2] mm: speculative get_page Message-ID: <20050628040608.GQ3334@holomorphy.com> References: <42BF9CD1.2030102@yahoo.com.au> <42BF9D67.10509@yahoo.com.au> <42BF9D86.90204@yahoo.com.au> <20050627141220.GM3334@holomorphy.com> <42C093B4.3010707@yahoo.com.au> <20050628012254.GO3334@holomorphy.com> <42C0AAF8.5090700@yahoo.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <42C0AAF8.5090700@yahoo.com.au> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Nick Piggin Cc: linux-kernel , Linux Memory Management List-ID: William Lee Irwin III wrote: >> tmpfs On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 11:42:16AM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > Well it switches between page and swap cache, but it seems to just > use the normal pagecache / swapcache functions for that. It could be > that I've got a big hole somewhere, but so far I don't think you've > pointed oen out. Its radix tree movement bypasses the page allocator. William Lee Irwin III wrote: >> hugetlbfs On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 11:42:16AM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > Well what's the trouble with it? hugetlb reallocation doesn't go through the page allocator either. William Lee Irwin III wrote: >> Someone else deal with this (paulus? anton? other arch maintainers?). On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 11:42:16AM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > I know what a memory barrier is and does, so you said the > necessary memory barriers aren't in place, so can you deal > with it? spin_unlock() does not imply a memory barrier. William Lee Irwin III wrote: >> The above is as much as I wanted to go into it. I need to direct my >> capacity for the grunt work of devising adversary arguments elsewhere. On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 11:42:16AM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > I don't think there is anything wrong with it. I would be very > keen to see real adversary arguments elsewhere though. They take time to construct. William Lee Irwin III wrote: >> You requested comments. I made some. On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 11:42:16AM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > Well yeah thanks, you did point out a thinko I made, and that was very > helpful and I value any time you spend looking at it. But just saying > "this is wrong, that won't work, that's crap, ergo the concept is > useless" without finding anything specifically wrong is not very > constructive. I said nothing of that kind, and I did point out specific things. The limitation of time/effort is directly related to the nature of the responses. -- 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