Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753889AbZAZXWT (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:22:19 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751793AbZAZXWH (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:22:07 -0500 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:60848 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751615AbZAZXWF (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:22:05 -0500 Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 00:21:39 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Ying Han Cc: Andrew Morton , npiggin@suse.de, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, travis@sgi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com, suresh.b.siddha@intel.com, arjan@infradead.org, hpa@zytor.com, tglx@linutronix.de, Mike Waychison Subject: Re: [git pull] cpus4096 tree, part 3 Message-ID: <20090126232139.GA29561@elte.hu> References: <20090103203621.GA2491@elte.hu> <20090103213856.GA24138@elte.hu> <20090103223723.GA17047@elte.hu> <20090105011416.GG32239@wotan.suse.de> <20090105011630.GI32239@wotan.suse.de> <20090126110054.bdddbf38.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20090126200957.GB13471@elte.hu> <20090126124427.6d13f341.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <604427e00901261312w23a1f0f5y61fc5c6cc70297fb@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <604427e00901261312w23a1f0f5y61fc5c6cc70297fb@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 987 Lines: 25 * Ying Han wrote: > Thank you Ingo and Andrew for the comments. I will take a look into it > ASAP and updates it here. Note, my objection wasnt a hard NAK - just an observation. If all things considered Andrew still favors the VM_FAULT_RETRY approach then that's fine too i guess. It's just that a quick look gave me the feeling of a retry flag tacked on to an existing codepath [and all the micro-overhead and complexity that this brings], instead of a clean refactoring of pagefault handling functionality into a higher MM level retry loop. So the alternative has to be looked at and rejected because it's technically inferior - not because it's more difficult to implement. (which it certainly is) Ingo -- 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/