From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <4691FFDC.5020808@yahoo.com.au> Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:29:00 +1000 From: Nick Piggin MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] Use mmu_gather for fork() instead of flush_tlb_mm() References: <1183952874.3388.349.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1183962981.5961.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1183963544.5961.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4691E64F.5070506@yahoo.com.au> <1183972349.5961.25.camel@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <1183972349.5961.25.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Linux Kernel list List-ID: Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 17:39 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > > >>Would it be better off to start off with a new API for this? The >>mmu gather I think is traditionally entirely for dealing with >>page removal... > > > It would be weird because the new API would mostly duplicate this one, > and we would end up with duplicated hooks.. They could just #define one to the other though, there are only a small number of them. Is there a downside to not making them distinct? i386 for example probably would just keep doing a tlb flush for fork and not want to worry about touching the tlb gather stuff. -- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. -- 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