Re: Why *not* rmap, anyway?
From: William Lee Irwin III <hidden>
Date: 2002-05-08 00:08:57
On Tuesday 07 May 2002 21:50, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
quoted
Generally the way to achieve this is by anticipating those bulk operations and providing standardized methods for them. copy_page_range() and zap_page_range() are already examples of this. For other cases, it's perhaps a useful layer inversion.
On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 01:02:02AM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
What I'm really talking about is how you'd reimplement copy_page_range, zap_page_range, and the other 4-5 primitives that use the 3 nested loops style of traversing the i86-style page table structure.
Why reimplement when you can rename? =) These guys aren't really the culprits. By and large the pagetables are just overused and overexposed; things that aren't speed critical should probably just pass callbacks into a generic walker if they absolutely have to walk pagetables. i.e. if you aren't the VM, don't do this. Walking pagetables is horribly slow anyway, zap_page_range() has ridiculous latencies. Shoving these guys off into their own module would likely be enough for the moment. Cheers, Bill -- 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/