From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 10:52:42 -0700 From: "Martin J. Bligh" Subject: Re: What to expect with the 2.6 VM Message-ID: <528080000.1057168362@flay> In-Reply-To: <20030702174700.GJ23578@dualathlon.random> References: <20030701022516.GL3040@dualathlon.random> <20030702171159.GG23578@dualathlon.random> <461030000.1057165809@flay> <20030702174700.GJ23578@dualathlon.random> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andrea Arcangeli Cc: Mel Gorman , Linux Memory Management List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Rik van Riel List-ID: --On Wednesday, July 02, 2003 19:47:00 +0200 Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 10:10:09AM -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote: >> Maybe I'm just taking this out of context, and it's twisting my brain, >> but as far as I know, the nonlinear vma's *are* backed by pte_chains. >> That was the whole problem with objrmap having to do conversions, etc. >> >> Am I just confused for some reason? I was pretty sure that was right ... > > you're right: > > int install_page(struct mm_struct *mm, struct vm_area_struct *vma, > unsigned long addr, struct page *page, pgprot_t prot) > [..] > flush_icache_page(vma, page); > set_pte(pte, mk_pte(page, prot)); > pte_chain = page_add_rmap(page, pte, pte_chain); > pte_unmap(pte); > [..] > > (this make me understand better some of the arguments in the previous > emails too ;) OK, nice to know I haven't totally lost it ;-) > So ether we declare 32bit archs obsolete in production with 2.6, or we > drop rmap behind remap_file_pages. Indeed - if we could memlock it, it'd be OK to drop that stuff. Would make everything a lot simpler. M. -- 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: aart@kvack.org