From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" From: Daniel Phillips Subject: Re: Why *not* rmap, anyway? Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 01:15:28 +0200 References: <20020507212123.GZ15756@holomorphy.com> In-Reply-To: <20020507212123.GZ15756@holomorphy.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: William Lee Irwin III Cc: Rik van Riel , Christian Smith , Joseph A Knapka , "Martin J. Bligh" , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Tuesday 07 May 2002 23:21, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > There are a couple of things I should probably say about my prior efforts. > > The plan back then was to hide the pagetable structure from generic code > altogether and allow architecture-specific code to export a procedural > interface totally insulating the core from the structure of pagetables. > This was largely motivated by the notion that the optimal pagetable > structure could be chosen on a per-architecture basis. Linus himself > informed me that there was evidence to the contrary regarding > architecture-specific optimal pagetable structures, and so I abandoned > that effort given the evidence the scheme was pessimal. > > I have no plans now to change the standardized structure or to export > a HAT from arch code. OTOH I've faced some recent reminders of what the > code looks like now and believe janitoring may well be in order. Swap_off is deeply disgusting and needs a rototilling. Some others like copy_page_range and remap_page_range are fine. Zap_page_range has superficial defects. Other than swap_off, there are no really obviously bleeding wounds. -- Daniel -- 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/