[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0909081735230.18233@sister.anvils>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 17:40:50 +0100 (BST)
From: Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>
To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/8] mm: reinstate ZERO_PAGE
On Tue, 8 Sep 2009, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 01:17:01PM +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > By the way, in compiling that list of "special" architectures,
> > I was surprised not to find ia64 amongst them. Not that it
> > matters to me, but I thought the Fujitsu guys were usually
> > keen on Itanium - do they realize that the special test is
> > excluding it, or do they have their own special patch for it?
>
> I don't understand your question. Are you asking whether they
> know your patch will not enable zero pages on ia64?
That's what I was meaning to ask, yes; but wondering whether
perhaps they've already got their own patch to enable pte_special
on ia64, and just haven't got around to sending it in yet.
>
> I guess pte special was primarily driven by gup_fast, which in
> turn was driven primarily by DB2 9.5, which I think might be
> only available on x86 and ibm's architectures.
>
> But I admit to being a curious as to when I'll see a gup_fast
> patch come out of SGI or HP or Fujitsu :)
Yes, me too!
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