Dave Hansen wrote:

On Thu, 2004-08-26 at 16:05, Hiroyuki KAMEZAWA wrote:

quoted

I understand using these macros cleans up codes as I used them in my previous
version.

In the previous version, I used SetPagePrivate()/ClearPagePrivate()/PagePrivate().
But these are "atomic" operation and looks very slow.
This is why I doesn't used these macros in this version.

My previous version, which used set_bit/test_bit/clear_bit, shows very bad performance
on my test, and I replaced it.

If I made a mistake on measuring the performance and set_bit/test_bit/clear_bit
is faster than what I think, I'd like to replace them.

Sorry, I misread your comment:

/* Atomic operation is needless here */

I read "needless" as "needed".  Would it make any more sense to you to
say "already have lock, don't need atomic ops", instead?

Thanks. I'm not so good at writing good comment, as you know :).
I'll rewrite it.


-- 
--the clue is these footmarks leading to the door.--
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki [off-list ref]

--
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>