From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" From: Daniel Phillips Subject: Re: how not to write a search algorithm Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 00:45:23 +0200 References: <3D4CE74A.A827C9BC@zip.com.au> <20020804203804.GD4010@holomorphy.com> <3D4D9802.D1F208F0@zip.com.au> In-Reply-To: <3D4D9802.D1F208F0@zip.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andrew Morton , William Lee Irwin III Cc: Rik van Riel , "linux-mm@kvack.org" List-ID: On Sunday 04 August 2002 23:09, Andrew Morton wrote: > Seems that simply changing the page_add_ramp() interface to require the > caller to pass in one (err, two) pte_chains would suffice. The tricky > one is copy_page_range(), which is probably where -ac panics. Hmm, seems to me my recent patch did exactly that. Somebody called it 'ugly' ;-) I did intend to move the initialization of that little pool outside copy_page_range, and never free the remainder. Why two pte_chains, by the way? > I suppose we could hang the pool of pte_chains off task_struct > and have a little "precharge the pte_chains" function. Gack. It's not that bad. It's much nicer than hanging onto the rmap lock while kmem_cache_alloc does its thing. -- 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/