From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261725AbVBXABl (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Feb 2005 19:01:41 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261705AbVBWX64 (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Feb 2005 18:58:56 -0500 Received: from smtp206.mail.sc5.yahoo.com ([216.136.129.96]:38543 "HELO smtp206.mail.sc5.yahoo.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S261709AbVBWXwb (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Feb 2005 18:52:31 -0500 Message-ID: <421D1737.1050501@yahoo.com.au> Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 10:52:23 +1100 From: Nick Piggin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20050105 Debian/1.7.5-1 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hugh Dickins CC: Andi Kleen , "David S. Miller" , benh@kernel.crashing.org, torvalds@osdl.org, akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] page table iterators References: <4214A1EC.4070102@yahoo.com.au> <4214A437.8050900@yahoo.com.au> <20050217194336.GA8314@wotan.suse.de> <1108680578.5665.14.camel@gaston> <20050217230342.GA3115@wotan.suse.de> <20050217153031.011f873f.davem@davemloft.net> <20050217235719.GB31591@wotan.suse.de> <4218840D.6030203@yahoo.com.au> <421B0163.3050802@yahoo.com.au> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hugh Dickins wrote: > I'm off to bed, but since your appetite for looking at patches > is greater than mine, I'll throw what I'm currently testing over > the wall to you now. Against 2.6.11-rc4-bk9, but my starting point > was obviously your patches. Not yet split up, but clearly should be. Yeah you've snuck a few other clever things in there ;) > Includes mm/swapfile.c which you missed. I'm inlining pmd and pud Thanks. > levels, but not pte and pgd levels. No description yet, sorry. OK - that's probably sufficient for debugging. There is only so much that can go wrong in the middle levels... how does it look performance wise? (I can give it a test when it gets split out) > One point worth making, I do believe throughout that whatever the > address layout, "end" cannot be 0 - BUG_ON(addr >= end) assures. > OK after sleeping on it, I'm warming to your way. I don't think it makes something like David's modifications any easier, but mine didn't go a long way to that end either. And being a more incremental approach gives us more room to move in future (for example, maybe toward something that really *will* accommodate the bitmap walking code nicely). So I'd be pretty happy for you to queue this up with Andrew for 2.6.12. Anyone else? Nick