From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <3D4B2535.2B1F5BF8@zip.com.au> Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 17:35:01 -0700 From: Andrew Morton MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: large page patch (fwd) (fwd) References: <92200000.1028332493@flay> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: "Martin J. Bligh" Cc: Linus Torvalds , Hubertus Franke , wli@holomorpy.com, swj@cse.unsw.edu.au, linux-mm mailing list List-ID: "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/