[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091218051754.GC417@elte.hu>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 06:17:54 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
minchan.kim@...il.com
Subject: Re: [mm][RFC][PATCH 0/11] mm accessor updates.
* Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > > That is why I think that the accessors are a good first step.
> >
> > They're not, they're daft, they operate on a global resource mm_struct,
> > that's the whole problem, giving it a different name isn't going to solve
> > anything.
>
> It is not about naming. The accessors hide the locking mechanism for
> mmap_sem. Then you can change the locking in a central place.
>
> The locking may even become configurable later. Maybe an embedded solution
> will want the existing scheme but dual quad socket may want a distributed
> reference counter to avoid bouncing cachelines on faults.
Hiding the locking is pretty much the worst design decision one can make.
Ingo
--
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