On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 00:35:19 -0700 (PDT) Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com> wrote:

quoted text
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 00:22:26 -0700 (PDT) Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com> 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.

quoted text
> Performance tests please...

On various HBAs, please ;)
-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/