Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759009AbZLPKgZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Dec 2009 05:36:25 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758741AbZLPKgX (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Dec 2009 05:36:23 -0500 Received: from fgwmail7.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.37]:42330 "EHLO fgwmail7.fujitsu.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755345AbZLPKgW (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Dec 2009 05:36:22 -0500 X-SecurityPolicyCheck-FJ: OK by FujitsuOutboundMailChecker v1.3.1 Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 19:33:15 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki To: Minchan Kim Cc: Andi Kleen , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , cl@linux-foundation.org, "akpm@linux-foundation.org" , "mingo@elte.hu" Subject: Re: [mm][RFC][PATCH 0/11] mm accessor updates. Message-Id: <20091216193315.14a508d5.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <28c262360912160231r18db8478sf41349362360cab8@mail.gmail.com> References: <20091216120011.3eecfe79.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20091216101107.GA15031@basil.fritz.box> <20091216191312.f4655dac.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20091216102806.GC15031@basil.fritz.box> <28c262360912160231r18db8478sf41349362360cab8@mail.gmail.com> Organization: FUJITSU Co. LTD. X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.5.0 (GTK+ 2.10.14; i686-pc-mingw32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1298 Lines: 42 On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 19:31:40 +0900 Minchan Kim wrote: > On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 7:28 PM, Andi Kleen wrote: > >> > Also the patches didn't fare too well in testing unfortunately. > >> > > >> > I suspect we'll rather need multiple locks split per address > >> > space range. > >> > >> This set doesn't include any changes of the logic. Just replace all mmap_sem. > >> I think this is good start point (for introducing another logic etc..) > > > > The problem is that for range locking simple wrapping the locks > > in macros is not enough. You need more changes. > > I agree. > > We can't justify to merge as only this patch series although this > doesn't change > any behavior. > > After we see the further works, let us discuss this patch's value. > Ok, I'll show new version of speculative page fault. > Nitpick: > In case of big patch series, it would be better to provide separate > all-at-once patch > with convenience for easy patch and testing. :) > Sure, keep it in my mind. Thanks, -Kame -- 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/