From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 10:45:39 +0100 (BST) From: Hugh Dickins Subject: Re: [rfc] no ZERO_PAGE? In-Reply-To: <20070404033726.GE18507@wotan.suse.de> Message-ID: References: <20070329075805.GA6852@wotan.suse.de> <20070330024048.GG19407@wotan.suse.de> <20070404033726.GE18507@wotan.suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Nick Piggin Cc: Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , Linux Memory Management List , tee@sgi.com, holt@sgi.com, Andrea Arcangeli , Linux Kernel Mailing List List-ID: On Wed, 4 Apr 2007, Nick Piggin wrote: > On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 04:40:48AM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > > Well it would make life easier if we got rid of ZERO_PAGE completely, > > which I definitely wouldn't complain about ;) Yes, I love this approach too. > > So, what bad things (apart from my bugs in untested code) happen > if we do this? We can actually go further, and probably remove the > ZERO_PAGE completely (just need an extra get_user_pages flag or > something for the core dumping issue). Some things will go faster (no longer needing a separate COW fault on the read-protected ZERO_PAGE), some things will go slower and use more memory. The open question is whether anyone will notice those regressions: I'm hoping they won't, I'm afraid they will. And though we'll see each as a program doing "something stupid", as in the Altix case Robin showed to drive us here, we cannot just ignore it. > > Shall I do a more complete patchset and ask Andrew to give it a > run in -mm? I'd like you to: I didn't study the fragment below, it's really all uses of the ZERO_PAGE that I'd like to see go, then we see who shouts. It's quite likely that the patch would have to be reverted: don't bother to remove the allocations of ZERO_PAGE in each architecture at this stage, too much nuisance going back and forth on those. Leave ZERO_PAGE as configurable, default off for testing, buried somewhere like under EMBEDDED? It's much more attractive just to remove the old code, and reintroduce it if there's a demand; but leaving it under config would make it easy to restore, and if there's trouble with removing ZERO_PAGE, we might later choose to disable it at the high end but enable it at the low. What would you prefer? Hugh -- 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