Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/4] ZERO PAGE again v2

[Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>]

On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 08:38:41PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> 
> On Fri, 10 Jul 2009, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > 
> > So if you were going to re-add the zero page when a single regression
> > is reported after a year or two, then it was wrong of you to remove
> > the zero page to begin with.
> 
> Oh, I argued against it. And I told people we can always revert it.
> 
> But even better than reverting it is to just fix it cleanly in the new 
> world order, wouldn't you say?

If it is put back in without being refcounted, that should be
fine. That's what I first proposed for it (although you didn't
think my actua implementation was clean and preferred to remove
it completely).

I would like to see support for architectures which don't define
a pte_special bit too, however.


> > So to answer your question, I guess I would like to know a bit
> > more about the regression and what the app is doing.
> 
> Ok, go ahead and try to figure it out. But please don't cc me on it any 
> more. I'm not interested in your hang-ups with ZERO_PAGE.
> 
> Because I just don't care. I think ZERO_PAGE was great to begin with, I 
> put it to use muyself historically at Transmeta, and I didn't like your 
> crusade against it.
> 
> People (including me) have told you why it's useful. Whatever. If you 
> still want more information, go bother somebody else.

You're apparently not reading what I write when I do cc you, so
I don't think there would be much difference.

--
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:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>