From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 09:42:35 +0000 Subject: Re: page table lock patch V15 [0/7]: overview Message-Id: <20050112014235.7095dcf4.akpm@osdl.org> List-Id: References: <41E4BCBE.2010001@yahoo.com.au> In-Reply-To: <41E4BCBE.2010001@yahoo.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Nick Piggin Cc: clameter@sgi.com, torvalds@osdl.org, ak@muc.de, hugh@veritas.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, benh@kernel.crashing.org Nick Piggin wrote: > > Christoph Lameter wrote: > > Changes from V14->V15 of this patch: > > Hi, > > I wonder what everyone thinks about moving forward with these patches? I was waiting for them to settle down before paying more attention. My general take is that these patches address a single workload on exceedingly rare and expensive machines. If they adversely affect common and cheap machines via code complexity, memory footprint or via runtime impact then it would be pretty hard to justify their inclusion. Do we have measurements of the negative and/or positive impact on smaller machines? From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261308AbVALJoG (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Jan 2005 04:44:06 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261307AbVALJoG (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Jan 2005 04:44:06 -0500 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:46059 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261308AbVALJnF (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Jan 2005 04:43:05 -0500 Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 01:42:35 -0800 From: Andrew Morton To: Nick Piggin Cc: clameter@sgi.com, torvalds@osdl.org, ak@muc.de, hugh@veritas.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, benh@kernel.crashing.org Subject: Re: page table lock patch V15 [0/7]: overview Message-Id: <20050112014235.7095dcf4.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <41E4BCBE.2010001@yahoo.com.au> References: <41E4BCBE.2010001@yahoo.com.au> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.7 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Nick Piggin wrote: > > Christoph Lameter wrote: > > Changes from V14->V15 of this patch: > > Hi, > > I wonder what everyone thinks about moving forward with these patches? I was waiting for them to settle down before paying more attention. My general take is that these patches address a single workload on exceedingly rare and expensive machines. If they adversely affect common and cheap machines via code complexity, memory footprint or via runtime impact then it would be pretty hard to justify their inclusion. Do we have measurements of the negative and/or positive impact on smaller machines? From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 01:42:35 -0800 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: page table lock patch V15 [0/7]: overview Message-Id: <20050112014235.7095dcf4.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <41E4BCBE.2010001@yahoo.com.au> References: <41E4BCBE.2010001@yahoo.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Nick Piggin Cc: clameter@sgi.com, torvalds@osdl.org, ak@muc.de, hugh@veritas.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, benh@kernel.crashing.org List-ID: Nick Piggin wrote: > > Christoph Lameter wrote: > > Changes from V14->V15 of this patch: > > Hi, > > I wonder what everyone thinks about moving forward with these patches? I was waiting for them to settle down before paying more attention. My general take is that these patches address a single workload on exceedingly rare and expensive machines. If they adversely affect common and cheap machines via code complexity, memory footprint or via runtime impact then it would be pretty hard to justify their inclusion. Do we have measurements of the negative and/or positive impact on smaller machines? -- 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: aart@kvack.org