From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 17:43:59 -0700 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: pagefault scalability patches Message-Id: <20050817174359.0efc7a6a.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <20050817151723.48c948c7.akpm@osdl.org> References: <20050817151723.48c948c7.akpm@osdl.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: torvalds@osdl.org, hugh@veritas.com, clameter@engr.sgi.com, piggin@cyberone.com.au, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Andrew Morton wrote: > > I have vague feelings of ickiness with the patches wrt: > > a) general increase of complexity > > b) the fact that they only partially address the problem: anonymous page > faults are addressed, but lots of other places aren't. > > c) the fact that they address one particular part of one particular > workload on exceedingly rare machines. d) the fact that some architectures will be using atomic pte ops and others will be using page_table_lock in core MM code. Using different locking/atomicity schemes in different architectures has obvious complexity and test coverage drawbacks. Is it still the case that some architectures must retain the page_table_lock approach because they use it to lock other arch-internal things? -- 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: email@kvack.org