From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 06:30:58 -0700 From: William Lee Irwin III Subject: Re: [PATCH] Optimize out pte_chain take three Message-ID: <20020713133058.GU23693@holomorphy.com> References: <20810000.1026311617@baldur.austin.ibm.com> <20020710173254.GS25360@holomorphy.com> <3D2C9288.51BBE4EB@zip.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Description: brief message Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Daniel Phillips Cc: Andrew Morton , Rik van Riel , Dave McCracken , Linux Memory Management List-ID: At some point in the past, I wrote: >>> (5) enables cooperative offlining of memory for friendly guest instance >>> behavior in UML and/or LPAR settings On Wednesday 10 July 2002 22:01, Andrew Morton wrote: >> Vapourware On Sat, Jul 13, 2002 at 03:22:28PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote: > See "enables" above. Though I agree we want the thing at parity or > better on its own merits, I don't see the point of throwing tomatoes at > the "enables" points. Recommendation: separate the list into "improves" > and "enables". The direction has been set and I'm following it. These things are now off the roadmap entirely regardless, or at least I won't pursue them until the things needing to be done now are addressed. Say, we could use a number of helpers with the quantitative measurement effort, Is there any chance you could help out here as well? It'd certainly help get the cost/benefit analysis of rmap going for the merge, and maybe even pinpoint things needing to be addressed. Cheers, Bill -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/