From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (d01relay04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.236]) by e4.ny.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l9PK0M4Y006697 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2007 16:00:22 -0400 Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (d01av01.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.215]) by d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.5) with ESMTP id l9PK0LJm060194 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2007 16:00:21 -0400 Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av01.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id l9PK0L79003805 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2007 16:00:21 -0400 Subject: Re: RFC/POC Make Page Tables Relocatable From: Dave Hansen In-Reply-To: References: <1193330774.4039.136.camel@localhost> <1193335725.24087.19.camel@localhost> <1193340182.24087.54.camel@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 13:00:19 -0700 Message-Id: <1193342419.24087.71.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Ross Biro Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Mel Gorman List-ID: On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 15:53 -0400, Ross Biro wrote: > On 10/25/07, Dave Hansen wrote: > > My guys says that this is way too complicated to be pursued in this > > form. But, don't listen to me. You don't have to convince _me_. > > At this point, I'm more interested if anyone has any objections in > principle to the overall thing. If so, and they are legitimate, then > it's not worth pursuing. If not, then I'll start. However, I > disagree with your order. Me too! I just ran through your patch and wrote ideas as I saw them in your patch order. I bet they need to be done in much different orders in reality. > I'm thinking more like: > > 1) Support for relocation. Generic slab relocation, right? > 2) Support for handles I've heard these handles are more or less what some other UNIXes do. That doesn't give it points in my book. :) > 3) Test module. > > These three work together and give a framework for validating the > relocation code with out causing too much trouble. The only problem > is that they are mostly useless on their own. Useless on their own is actually OK. Patches series are often useless up until patch 943/943. > Then the page table related code, using your suggestion above > (provided I can get it to work. I'm worried about the page table > being freed while I'm trying to figure out what mm it belongs to.) > I'll break this into small chunks. How would it get freed? -- Dave -- 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: email@kvack.org