Re: [git pull] cpus4096 tree, part 3

Andrew Morton
2009-01-26T23:45:28Z

On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 00:21:39 +0100
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:

>
> * 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)
>

I have wobbly feelings about this patch. There are your issues, and a
long string of problems and fixes. And my recent half-assed
linux-next-related fix which I didn't really think about.

It all needs a revisit/rereview/reunderstand cycle.