From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Ying Han <yinghan@google.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
npiggin@suse.de, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
torvalds@linux-foundation.org, rusty@rustcorp.com.au,
travis@sgi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com, suresh.b.siddha@intel.com,
arjan@infradead.org, hpa@zytor.com, tglx@linutronix.de,
Mike Waychison <mikew@google.com>
Subject: Re: [git pull] cpus4096 tree, part 3
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 00:21:39 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090126232139.GA29561@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <604427e00901261312w23a1f0f5y61fc5c6cc70297fb@mail.gmail.com>
* Ying Han <yinghan@google.com> wrote:
> Thank you Ingo and Andrew for the comments. I will take a look into it
> ASAP and updates it here.
Note, my objection wasnt a hard NAK - just an observation. If all things
considered Andrew still favors the VM_FAULT_RETRY approach then that's
fine too i guess.
It's just that a quick look gave me the feeling of a retry flag tacked on
to an existing codepath [and all the micro-overhead and complexity that
this brings], instead of a clean refactoring of pagefault handling
functionality into a higher MM level retry loop.
So the alternative has to be looked at and rejected because it's
technically inferior - not because it's more difficult to implement.
(which it certainly is)
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-01-26 23:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <alpine.LFD.2.00.0901021149020.5086@localhost.localdomain>
[not found] ` <20090102203839.GA26850@elte.hu>
[not found] ` <alpine.LFD.2.00.0901021531140.3179@localhost.localdomain>
[not found] ` <20090103193859.GB9805@elte.hu>
[not found] ` <alpine.LFD.2.00.0901031225020.3179@localhost.localdomain>
[not found] ` <20090103203621.GA2491@elte.hu>
[not found] ` <20090103213856.GA24138@elte.hu>
[not found] ` <alpine.LFD.2.00.0901031347570.3179@localhost.localdomain>
[not found] ` <20090103223723.GA17047@elte.hu>
[not found] ` <20090105011416.GG32239@wotan.suse.de>
2009-01-05 1:16 ` [git pull] cpus4096 tree, part 3 Nick Piggin
2009-01-26 19:00 ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-26 19:09 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-01-26 19:30 ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-26 20:09 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-26 20:44 ` Andrew Morton
[not found] ` <604427e00901261312w23a1f0f5y61fc5c6cc70297fb@mail.gmail.com>
2009-01-26 23:21 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2009-01-26 23:44 ` Andrew Morton
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20090126232139.GA29561@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=arjan@infradead.org \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mikew@google.com \
--cc=npiggin@suse.de \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--cc=suresh.b.siddha@intel.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=travis@sgi.com \
--cc=venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com \
--cc=yinghan@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox