From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail143.messagelabs.com (mail143.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.35]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9FA615F0001 for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2009 10:41:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Nick Piggin Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v3 1/6] mm: Don't unmap gup()ed page Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 00:42:14 +1000 References: <20090414151204.C647.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <200904150026.36142.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> <20090414143252.GE28265@random.random> In-Reply-To: <20090414143252.GE28265@random.random> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200904150042.15653.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Andrea Arcangeli Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro , LKML , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Jeff Moyer , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Hugh Dickins List-ID: On Wednesday 15 April 2009 00:32:52 Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 12:26:34AM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > > Andrea: I didn't veto that set_bit change of yours as such. I just > > I know you didn't ;) > > > noted there could be more atomic operations. Actually I would > > welcome more comparison between our two approaches, but they seem > > Agree about the welcome of comparison, it'd be nice to measure it the > enterprise workloads that showed the gup_fast gain in the first place. I think we should be able to ask IBM to run some tests, provided they still have machines available to do so. Although I don't want to waste their time so we need to have something that has got past initial code review and has a chance of being merged. If we get that far, then I can ask them to run tests definitely. -- 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