On Thu, May 29, 2003 at 07:39:47PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:

On Thursday 29 May 2003 19:15, Daniel Phillips wrote:

quoted

On Thursday 29 May 2003 18:33, you wrote:

quoted

Me?  I much preferred your original, much sparer, nopagedone patch
(labelled "uglyh as hell" by hch).

"me too".

Oh wait, I mispoke... there is another formulation of the patch that hasn't 
yet been posted for review.  Instead of having the nopagedone hook, it turns 
the entire do_no_page into a hook, per hch's suggestion, but leaves in the 
->nopage hook, which makes the patch small and obviously right.  I need to 
post that version for comparison, please bear with me.

IMHO, it's nicer than the ->nopagedone form.

I put together something like this, but the problem with it is that
do_anonymous_page() needs the mm->page_table_lock held, but the
->nopage functions want this lock not to be held.  One could require
that all the lock be held on entry to all ->nopage functions, but
this would require almost all ->nopage functions to drop the lock
immediately upon entry.  This seemed error-prone to me, but could
certainly be done...

Thoughts?  Me, I don't care as long as there is some reasonable
way for distributed filesystems to safely resolve the race between
page faults and invalidation requests from other nodes.  ;-)

						Thanx, Paul
--
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: <a href=mailto:"aart@kvack.org"> aart@kvack.org </a>