On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 00:35:19 -0700 (PDT) Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2007, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 00:22:26 -0700 (PDT) Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL > > PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I will submit pieces to mm depending on the > > > outcome of our discussions. > > > There's a ludicrous amount of MM work pending in -mm. It would probably be > > less work at your end to see what ends up landing in 2.6.22-rc1. > > I am aware of that and thats why I kept this against upstream. The need > right now is for justification and explanation. I had to go > through a head spinning series of VM layers to get an idea how to do > this in a clean way and then had to make additional passes to do minimal > modifications to get this working so that it is testable. OK. Don't get me wrong - I do think this is neat code and is a good way of addressing the problem. (I'm surprised that the mmap protopatch didn't touch rmap.c). But I don't think it's a slam dunk and I would like you to appreciate the constraints which I believe we operate under. And I don't think we've adequately considered alternative solutions to the immediate performance problems. > Performance tests please... On various HBAs, please ;) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
