Re: Why *not* rmap, anyway?

On Tuesday 07 May 2002 21:23, Rik van Riel wrote:

On Tue, 7 May 2002, Christian Smith wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

If not the Mach pmap layer, then surely another pmap-like
layer would be beneficial.

How about the one we already have?

I don't like using a data structure as an 'API'. An API ideally gives
you an interface to what you need to do, not how it's done. Sure, APIs
can become obsolete, but function calls are MUCH easier to provide
legacy support for than a large, complex data structure.

OK, this I can agree with.

I'd be interested in working with you towards a way of
hiding some of the data structure manipulation behind
a more abstract interface, kind of like what I've done
with the -rmap stuff ... nothing outside of rmap.c
knows about struct pte_chain and nothing should know.

If you could help find ways in which we can abstract
out manipulation of some more data structures I'd be
really happy to help implement and clean up stuff.

The most obvious place to start are the page table walking operations, of
which there are a half-dozen instances or so.  Bill started to do some
work on this, but that ran aground somehow.  I think you might run into
the argument 'not broken yet, so don't fix yet'.  Still, it would be
worth experimenting with strategies.

Personally, I'd consider such work a diversion from the more important task
of getting rmap implemented.

-- 
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/