Re: [git pull] cpus4096 tree, part 3

Ingo Molnar
2009-01-26T23:22:19Z

* 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)

Ingo