On Tuesday 27 May 2014 03:51 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> Madhavan Srinivasan wrote:
>> On Tuesday 20 May 2014 03:57 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>>> Rusty Russell wrote:
"Kirill A. Shutemov" writes:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 May 2014 16:23:07 -0700 (PDT) Hugh Dickins
Madhavan Srinivasan wrote:
> On Tuesday 20 May 2014 03:57 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > Rusty Russell wrote:
> >> "Kirill A. Shutemov" writes:
> >>> Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 19 May 2014 16:23:07 -0700 (PDT) Hugh Dickins
> wrote:
>
> > Shouldn't FAULT_AROUND_ORDER and
On Tuesday 20 May 2014 03:57 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> Rusty Russell wrote:
>> "Kirill A. Shutemov" writes:
>>> Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 19 May 2014 16:23:07 -0700 (PDT) Hugh Dickins
wrote:
> Shouldn't FAULT_AROUND_ORDER and fault_around_order be changed to be
>
Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 21 May 2014 16:40:27 +0300 (EEST) "Kirill A. Shutemov"
> wrote:
>
> > > Or something. Can we please get some code commentary over
> > > do_fault_around() describing this design decision and explaining the
> > > reasoning behind it?
> >
> > I'll do this. But if do
On Wed, 21 May 2014 16:40:27 +0300 (EEST) "Kirill A. Shutemov"
wrote:
> > Or something. Can we please get some code commentary over
> > do_fault_around() describing this design decision and explaining the
> > reasoning behind it?
>
> I'll do this. But if do_fault_around() rework is needed, I w
Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 20 May 2014 13:27:38 +0300 (EEST) "Kirill A. Shutemov"
> wrote:
>
> > Rusty Russell wrote:
> > > "Kirill A. Shutemov" writes:
> > > > Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > >> On Mon, 19 May 2014 16:23:07 -0700 (PDT) Hugh Dickins
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Shouldn
On Tue, 20 May 2014 13:27:38 +0300 (EEST) "Kirill A. Shutemov"
wrote:
> Rusty Russell wrote:
> > "Kirill A. Shutemov" writes:
> > > Andrew Morton wrote:
> > >> On Mon, 19 May 2014 16:23:07 -0700 (PDT) Hugh Dickins
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Shouldn't FAULT_AROUND_ORDER and fault_around_or
Rusty Russell wrote:
> "Kirill A. Shutemov" writes:
> > Andrew Morton wrote:
> >> On Mon, 19 May 2014 16:23:07 -0700 (PDT) Hugh Dickins
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Shouldn't FAULT_AROUND_ORDER and fault_around_order be changed to be
> >> > the order of the fault-around size in bytes, and fault_arou
On Tuesday 20 May 2014 01:02 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 20 May 2014 15:52:07 +0930 Rusty Russell
> wrote:
>
>> "Kirill A. Shutemov" writes:
>>> Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 19 May 2014 16:23:07 -0700 (PDT) Hugh Dickins
wrote:
> Shouldn't FAULT_AROUND_ORDER and fault
On Tue, 20 May 2014 15:52:07 +0930 Rusty Russell wrote:
> "Kirill A. Shutemov" writes:
> > Andrew Morton wrote:
> >> On Mon, 19 May 2014 16:23:07 -0700 (PDT) Hugh Dickins
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Shouldn't FAULT_AROUND_ORDER and fault_around_order be changed to be
> >> > the order of the fault
"Kirill A. Shutemov" writes:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 May 2014 16:23:07 -0700 (PDT) Hugh Dickins
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Shouldn't FAULT_AROUND_ORDER and fault_around_order be changed to be
>> > the order of the fault-around size in bytes, and fault_around_pages()
>> > use 1UL << (fault_a
On Tue, 20 May 2014, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Hugh Dickins writes:
> >> On Monday 19 May 2014 05:42 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Perhaps we try to generalize from two data points (a slight improvement
> >> > over doing it from 1!), eg:
> >> >
> >> > /* 4 seems good for 4k-page x86, 0 see
Hugh Dickins writes:
> On Mon, 19 May 2014, Madhavan Srinivasan wrote:
>> On Monday 19 May 2014 05:42 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:
>> > Hugh Dickins writes:
>> >> On Thu, 15 May 2014, Madhavan Srinivasan wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi Ingo,
>> >>>
>> >>> Do you have any comments for the latest version of t
On Tuesday 20 May 2014 04:53 AM, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Mon, 19 May 2014, Madhavan Srinivasan wrote:
>> On Monday 19 May 2014 05:42 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:
>>> Hugh Dickins writes:
On Thu, 15 May 2014, Madhavan Srinivasan wrote:
>
> Hi Ingo,
>
> Do you have any comments f
Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 19 May 2014 16:23:07 -0700 (PDT) Hugh Dickins
> wrote:
>
> > Shouldn't FAULT_AROUND_ORDER and fault_around_order be changed to be
> > the order of the fault-around size in bytes, and fault_around_pages()
> > use 1UL << (fault_around_order - PAGE_SHIFT)
>
> Yes. A
On Mon, 19 May 2014 16:23:07 -0700 (PDT) Hugh Dickins wrote:
> Shouldn't FAULT_AROUND_ORDER and fault_around_order be changed to be
> the order of the fault-around size in bytes, and fault_around_pages()
> use 1UL << (fault_around_order - PAGE_SHIFT)
Yes. And shame on me for missing it (this ti
On Mon, 19 May 2014, Madhavan Srinivasan wrote:
> On Monday 19 May 2014 05:42 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > Hugh Dickins writes:
> >> On Thu, 15 May 2014, Madhavan Srinivasan wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Ingo,
> >>>
> >>> Do you have any comments for the latest version of the patchset. If
> >>> not, kin
On Monday 19 May 2014 05:42 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Hugh Dickins writes:
>> On Thu, 15 May 2014, Madhavan Srinivasan wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Ingo,
>>>
>>> Do you have any comments for the latest version of the patchset. If
>>> not, kindly can you pick it up as is.
>>>
>>>
>>> With regards
>>> Mad
Hugh Dickins writes:
> On Thu, 15 May 2014, Madhavan Srinivasan wrote:
>>
>> Hi Ingo,
>>
>> Do you have any comments for the latest version of the patchset. If
>> not, kindly can you pick it up as is.
>>
>>
>> With regards
>> Maddy
>>
>> > Kirill A. Shutemov with 8c6e50b029 commit introd
On Thu, 15 May 2014, Madhavan Srinivasan wrote:
>
> Hi Ingo,
>
> Do you have any comments for the latest version of the patchset. If
> not, kindly can you pick it up as is.
>
>
> With regards
> Maddy
>
> > Kirill A. Shutemov with 8c6e50b029 commit introduced
> > vm_ops->map_pages() for m
Hi Ingo,
Do you have any comments for the latest version of the patchset. If
not, kindly can you pick it up as is.
With regards
Maddy
> Kirill A. Shutemov with 8c6e50b029 commit introduced
> vm_ops->map_pages() for mapping easy accessible pages around
> fault address in hope to reduce
21 matches
Mail list logo
