Re: page fault scalability patch final : i386 tested, x86_64 support added

Christoph Lameter
2004-09-02T16:25:32Z

Why was it done that way? Would it not be better to add the new
functionality by giving the function another name?

Like f.e. set_pte_mm()

then one could add the following in asm-generic/pgtable.h

#ifndef __HAVE_ARCH_SET_PTE_MM
#define set_pte_mm(mm, address, ptep, pte) set_pte(ptep, pte)
#endif

which would avoid having to update the other platforms and woud allow a
gradual transition.

My patch does something like that in order to avoid having to update all
arches. Arches without __HAVE_ARCH_ATOMIC_TABLE_OPS will have their
atomicity simulated via the page_table_lock.

On Wed, 1 Sep 2004, David S. Miller wrote:

> On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 21:45:20 -0700 (PDT)
> Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com> wrote:
> > > BTW. We should get David's patch in first thing before tackling with
> > > this complicated issue (the one adding mm & addr to set_pte & friends).
> >
> > Where would I find that patch?
> Attached.
> It's held up because it needs to be ported to all platforms
> before we can consider it seriously for inclusion and
> only sparc64 and ppc{,64} are converted.
>
>