Thread (38 messages) 38 messages, 8 authors, 2002-05-08

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/
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help