From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 16:15:41 -0800 (PST) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] abstract pagetable locking and pte updates In-Reply-To: <20041029074607.GA12934@holomorphy.com> Message-ID: References: <4181EF2D.5000407@yahoo.com.au> <20041029074607.GA12934@holomorphy.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: William Lee Irwin III Cc: Nick Piggin , Linux Memory Management List-ID: On Fri, 29 Oct 2004, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 05:20:13PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > > Known issues: Hugepages, nonlinear pages haven't been looked at > > and are quite surely broken. TLB flushing (gather/finish) runs > > without the page table lock, which will break at least SPARC64. > > Additional atomic ops in copy_page_range slow down lmbench fork > > by 7%. > > This raises the rather serious question of what you actually did > besides rearranging Lameter's code. It had all the same problems; > resolving them is a prerequisite to going anywhere with all this. Could you be specific as to the actual problems? I have worked through several archs over time and my code offers a fallback to the use of the page_table_lock if an arch does not provide the necessary atomic ops. So what are the issues with my code? I fixed the PAE code based on Nick's work. AFAIK this was the only known issue. -- 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