Re: large page patch (fwd) (fwd)

[Andrew Morton <akpm@zip.com.au>]

"Martin J. Bligh" wrote:
> 
> >> Let me than turn around the table. Have you looked at our patch for 2.4.18.
> >> It doesn't add anything to the hot path either, if the (vma->pg_order == 0).
> >> Period.
> >
> > Nobody has forwarded the patch, and I've seen no discussion of it on the
> > kernel mailing lists.
> >
> > Guess what the answer is?
> >
> > Is it 10 lines of code in the VM subsystem?
> 
> No, and you're not going to like the patch in it's current incarnation by
> the sound of it. So, having listened to your objections, we're going to
> take a slightly different course - we will prepare a minimal version of
> the patch with very low impact on the core VM code, but using more
> standard interfaces to access it (eg the shmem method you outlined
> earlier). It'll have a little less functionality, but so be it.

Remind me again what's wrong with wrapping the Intel syscalls
inside malloc() and then maybe grafting a little hook into the shm code?

>...
> We should have this available in a few days - if you could hold off
> until then, we should be able to do an objective comparison? I believe
> we can make something that's acceptable to you.

More than a few days.  The patch which went around isn't Rohit's
latest, and it hasn't even been tested in 2.5 and we're considering
replacing the shm key with an fd, and...
--
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/