From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 14:33:29 +0200 From: Nick Piggin Subject: Re: MMU notifiers review and some proposals Message-ID: <20080726123329.GB17958@wotan.suse.de> References: <20080724143949.GB12897@wotan.suse.de> <20080725214552.GB21150@duo.random> <20080726030810.GA18896@wotan.suse.de> <20080726113813.GD21150@duo.random> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080726113813.GD21150@duo.random> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andrea Arcangeli Cc: Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , Linux Memory Management List , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, steiner@sgi.com, cl@linux-foundation.org List-ID: On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 01:38:13PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 05:08:10AM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote: > > Anyway, I just voice my opinion and let Andrew and Linus decide. To be > > clear: I have not found any actual bugs in Andrea's -mm patchset, only > > some dislikes of the approach. > > Yes, like I said I think this is a matter of taste of what you like of > the tradeoff. There are disadvantages and advantages in both and if we > wait forever to please everyone taste, it'll never go in. And for this item, I think there has been a bit too much emphasis on pleasing the taste of the drivers and not enough on the core VM. My concern about adding a new TLB flushing design to core VM was never taken seriously, for example. Nor was my request for performance numbers. And I did ask early in the year. I believe when you don't have any real numbers for justification, the only sane thing to do is go with the most minimal and simplest implementation first, and add complexity if/when it can be justified. -- 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