From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: Why *not* rmap, anyway? References: From: Momchil Velikov Date: 24 Apr 2002 17:37:04 +0300 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <87k7qxuprj.fsf@fadata.bg> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Rik van Riel Cc: Christian Smith , Joseph A Knapka , "Martin J. Bligh" , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: >>>>> "Rik" == Rik van Riel writes: Rik> On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Christian Smith wrote: >> On Tue, 23 Apr 2002, Rik van Riel wrote: >> >On Tue, 23 Apr 2002, Christian Smith wrote: >> > >> >> The question becomes, how much work would it be to rip out the Linux MM >> >> piece-meal, and replace it with an implementation of UVM? >> > >> >I doubt we want the Mach pmap layer. >> >> Why not? It'd surely make porting to new architecures easier (not that >> I've tried it either way, mind) Rik> You really need to read the pmap code and interface instead Rik> of repeating the statements made by other people. Have you Rik> ever taken a close look at the overhead implicit in the pmap Rik> layer ? Actually, on ia32, there's no reason for the pmap layer to be any different than the Linux radix tree. The overhead argument does not stand. -- 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/