From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 10:06:46 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] mm: tracking shared dirty pages In-Reply-To: <1148576582.10561.83.camel@lappy> Message-ID: References: <20060525135534.20941.91650.sendpatchset@lappy> <20060525135555.20941.36612.sendpatchset@lappy> <1148576582.10561.83.camel@lappy> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Christoph Lameter , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Hugh Dickins , Andrew Morton , David Howells , Martin Bligh , Nick Piggin , Linus Torvalds List-ID: On Thu, 25 May 2006, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > Ah, I see what you're saying here. Good point, David, Hugh? > > The reason I did it was because of Hugh's trick to use MAP_SHARED > protection and building on top of it naturally solves the patch conflict > Andrew would have had to resolve otherwise. I guess what we wanted is a patch that addresses the concern of both patches and not a combination of the patches. IMHO the dirty notification of David's patch is possible with the shared dirty pages patch if we allow the set_page_dirty method in address operations to sleep and return an error code. However, this may raise some additional issues because we have to check whenever we dirty a page. -- 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: email@kvack.org