Re: Why *not* rmap, anyway?
From: Daniel Phillips <hidden>
Date: 2002-05-07 23:15:28
On Tuesday 07 May 2002 23:21, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
There are a couple of things I should probably say about my prior efforts. The plan back then was to hide the pagetable structure from generic code altogether and allow architecture-specific code to export a procedural interface totally insulating the core from the structure of pagetables. This was largely motivated by the notion that the optimal pagetable structure could be chosen on a per-architecture basis. Linus himself informed me that there was evidence to the contrary regarding architecture-specific optimal pagetable structures, and so I abandoned that effort given the evidence the scheme was pessimal. I have no plans now to change the standardized structure or to export a HAT from arch code. OTOH I've faced some recent reminders of what the code looks like now and believe janitoring may well be in order.
Swap_off is deeply disgusting and needs a rototilling. Some others like copy_page_range and remap_page_range are fine. Zap_page_range has superficial defects. Other than swap_off, there are no really obviously bleeding wounds. -- 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/