From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <48AC4EE0.4050603@linux-foundation.org> Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 12:05:36 -0500 From: Christoph Lameter MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [patch] mm: rewrite vmap layer References: <20080818133224.GA5258@wotan.suse.de> <48AADBDC.2000608@linux-foundation.org> <20080820090234.GA7018@wotan.suse.de> <48AC244F.1030104@linux-foundation.org> <20080820162235.GA26894@wotan.suse.de> <48AC4B41.8080908@linux-foundation.org> <20080820165947.GA19656@wotan.suse.de> In-Reply-To: <20080820165947.GA19656@wotan.suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Nick Piggin Cc: Andrew Morton , Linux Memory Management List , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Nick Piggin wrote: > On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 11:50:09AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote: >> Nick Piggin wrote: >> >>> Indeed that would be a good use for it if this general fallback mechanism >>> were to be merged. >> Want me to rebase my virtualizable compound patchset on top of your vmap changes? > > Is there much clash between them? Or just the fact that you'll have to > use vm_map_ram/vm_unmap_ram? There is not much of a clash. If you would make vmap/unmap atomic then there is barely any overlap at all and the patchset becomes much smaller and even the initial version of it can support in interrupt alloc / free. > I probably wouldn't be able to find time to look at that patchset again > for a while... but anyway, I've been running the vmap rewrite for quite > a while on several different systems and workloads without problems, so > it should be stable enough to test out. And the APIs should not change. Yes I think this is good stuff. Hopefully I will get enough time to check it out in detail. -- 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