From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
Cc: Linux Memory Management <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>,
David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [patch 0/4] mm: de-skew page refcount
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 09:27:14 -0800 (PST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0601190917271.3240@g5.osdl.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060119170656.GA9904@wotan.suse.de>
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> Hmm... this is what the de-skew patch _did_ (although it was wrapped
> in a function called get_page_unless_zero), in fact the main aim was
> to prevent this twiddling and the de-skewing was just a nice side effect
> (I guess the patch title is misleading).
>
> So I'm confused...
The thing I minded was the _other_ changes, namely the de-skewing itself.
It seemed totally unnecessary to what you claimed was the point of the
patch.
So I objected to the patch on the grounds that it did what you claimed
badly. All the _optimization_ was totally independent of that de-skewing,
and the de-skewing was a potential un-optimization.
But if you do the optimizations as one independent set of patches, and
_then_ do the counter thing as a "simplify logic" patch, I don't see that
as a problem.
Side note: I may be crazy, but for me when merging, one of the biggest
things is "does this pass my 'makes sense' detector". I look less at the
end result, than I actually look at the _change_. See?
That's why two separate patches that do the same thing as one combined
patch may make sense, even if the _combined_ one does not (it could go the
other way too, obviously).
Linus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-01-19 17:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-01-18 10:40 [patch 0/4] mm: de-skew page refcount Nick Piggin
2006-01-18 10:40 ` [patch 1/4] mm: page refcount use atomic primitives Nick Piggin
2006-01-18 10:40 ` [patch 2/4] mm: PageLRU no testset Nick Piggin
2006-01-19 17:48 ` Nikita Danilov
2006-01-19 18:10 ` Nick Piggin
2006-01-18 10:40 ` [patch 3/3] mm: PageActive " Nick Piggin
2006-01-18 14:13 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2006-01-19 14:50 ` Nick Piggin
2006-01-19 16:52 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2006-01-19 20:02 ` Nick Piggin
2006-01-19 21:41 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2006-01-18 10:41 ` [patch 4/4] mm: less atomic ops Nick Piggin
2006-01-18 16:38 ` [patch 0/4] mm: de-skew page refcount Linus Torvalds
2006-01-18 17:05 ` Nick Piggin
2006-01-18 19:27 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-01-19 14:00 ` Nick Piggin
2006-01-19 16:36 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-01-19 17:06 ` Nick Piggin
2006-01-19 17:27 ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2006-01-19 17:38 ` Nick Piggin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Pine.LNX.4.64.0601190917271.3240@g5.osdl.org \
--to=torvalds@osdl.org \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=andrea@suse.de \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=hugh@veritas.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=npiggin@suse.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).