From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from puffin.external.hp.com (puffin.external.hp.com [192.25.206.4]) by dsl2.external.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B48D482C for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 09:49:53 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <200111161644.JAA26017@puffin.external.hp.com> To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: "David S. Miller" , linux-mm@kvack.org, parisc-linux@lists.parisc-linux.org Subject: Re: [parisc-linux] Re: parisc scatterlist doesn't want page/offset In-Reply-To: Message from Matthew Wilcox of "Fri, 16 Nov 2001 15:43:50 GMT." <20011116154350.L25491@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 09:44:57 -0700 From: Grant Grundler Sender: parisc-linux-admin@lists.parisc-linux.org Errors-To: parisc-linux-admin@lists.parisc-linux.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: parisc-linux developers list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Matthew Wilcox wrote: > grant suggested adding support for it had performance implications, Jens is right to some degree - I'm counting cycles in that code path since every driver depends on it for every IO request. Until page/offset completely replaces address, I see a net increase in cycles for parisc (probably most archs) with only a tangible benefit for i386. Seems like the burden should be on the i386 folks to not impact other arches. My main gripe is adding this to 2.4 seems like the wrong time/place. I'm happy to revisit this in 2.5. grant ps. I still have to go hunt down the discussion jens was referring to. Maybe if I understood the direction better, I'd be more receptive.