[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0704161956510.13584@blonde.wat.veritas.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 20:04:29 +0100 (BST)
From: Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
cc: Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch -mm] i386: use pte_update_defer in ptep_test_and_clear_{dirty,young}
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007, David Rientjes wrote:
>
> > Compromise patch below: would that be satisfactory to you, David?
>
> I really like the patch, but for perhaps a slightly different reason:
> we're only flushing ranges that have been shown to need it. We aren't
> completely flushing the entire mm which is likely to be excessive in
> situations where we're actually using /proc/pid/clear_refs in combination
> with /proc/pid/smaps for memory footprint approximation (i.e. it's on a
> fine granularity).
It would be more of a reason to like the patch, if more architectures
actually implemented flush_tlb_range as anything different from
flush_tlb_mm ;) Sadly, few can do better than flush_tlb_mm: ia64
is the exception I remember, and maybe a couple of others. I put
flush_tlb_range there merely because it seems more appropriate,
but it's rather deceptive.
Hugh
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists