From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qg0-f42.google.com (mail-qg0-f42.google.com [209.85.192.42]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 481526B0038 for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 16:09:45 -0500 (EST) Received: by qgfi50 with SMTP id i50so8008885qgf.10 for ; Thu, 05 Mar 2015 13:09:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from resqmta-ch2-11v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-ch2-11v.sys.comcast.net. [2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:43]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id w6si5302076qkw.118.2015.03.05.13.09.44 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 05 Mar 2015 13:09:44 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 15:09:42 -0600 (CST) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: Resurrecting the VM_PINNED discussion In-Reply-To: <20150305204632.GT21418@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> Message-ID: References: <20150303174105.GA3295@akamai.com> <20150305204632.GT21418@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Eric B Munson , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , Andrew Morton , Hugh Dickins , Mel Gorman , Roland Dreier , Sean Hefty , Hal Rosenstock , Mike Marciniszyn On Thu, 5 Mar 2015, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > Am I missing something about why it was never merged? > > Because I got lost in IB code and didn't manage to bribe anyone into > fixing that for me. Well the complexity increased since then with the on demand pinning, mmu notifiers etc etc ... I thought the clear distinction between pinning and mlocking would do the trick? -- 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