From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <48908BD4.10408@linux-foundation.org> Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 10:42:12 -0500 From: Christoph Lameter MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: MMU notifiers review and some proposals 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> In-Reply-To: <20080730145436.GJ11494@duo.random> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andrea Arcangeli Cc: Nick Piggin , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , Linux Memory Management List , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, steiner@sgi.com List-ID: 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. -- 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