From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 08:14:19 +0200 From: Nick Piggin Subject: Re: MMU notifiers review and some proposals Message-ID: <20080731061419.GB32644@wotan.suse.de> References: <20080724143949.GB12897@wotan.suse.de> <20080725214552.GB21150@duo.random> <20080726030810.GA18896@wotan.suse.de> <20080726113813.GD21150@duo.random> <20080726122826.GA17958@wotan.suse.de> <20080726130202.GA9598@duo.random> <20080726131450.GC21820@wotan.suse.de> <48907880.3020105@linux-foundation.org> <20080730145436.GJ11494@duo.random> <48908BD4.10408@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <48908BD4.10408@linux-foundation.org> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Andrea Arcangeli , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , Linux Memory Management List , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, steiner@sgi.com List-ID: On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 10:42:12AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote: > Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > > I think the current implementation is fine for the long run, it can > > provide the fastest performance when armed, and each invalidate either > > requires IPIs or it may may need to access the southbridge, so when > > freeing large areas of memory it's good being able to do a single > > invalidate. > > Right. A couple of months ago we had this discussion and agreed that the begin / end was the way to go. I still support that decision. That's OK. We don't have to make decisions just by people supporting one way or the other, because I'll come up with some competing patches and if they turn out to be significantly simpler to the core VM without having a significant negative impact on performance then naturally everybody should be happy to merge them, so nobody has to argue with handwaving. -- 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