From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263698AbUDGOu4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Apr 2004 10:50:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263702AbUDGOu4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Apr 2004 10:50:56 -0400 Received: from ns.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:6110 "EHLO Cantor.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263698AbUDGOus (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Apr 2004 10:50:48 -0400 Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 16:50:41 +0200 From: Andi Kleen To: Anton Blanchard Cc: david@gibson.dropbear.id.au, akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, benh@kernel.crashing.org, paulus@samba.org, linuxppc64-dev@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: RFC: COW for hugepages Message-Id: <20040407165041.23d8d82a.ak@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <20040407142748.GO26474@krispykreme> References: <20040407074239.GG18264@zax> <20040407143447.4d8f08af.ak@suse.de> <20040407142748.GO26474@krispykreme> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.7 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 8 Apr 2004 00:27:48 +1000 Anton Blanchard wrote: > > > Implementing this for ppc64 only is just wrong. Before you do this > > I would suggest to factor out the common code in the various hugetlbpage > > implementations and then implement it in common code. > > I could say a similar thing about your i386 specific largepage modifications > in the NUMA api :) All they did was to modify the code to lazy faulting. That is architecture specific (and add the mpol code, but that was pretty minor) COW is a different thing though. > > We should probably look at making lots of the arch specific hugetlb code > common but im not sure we want that to become a prerequisite for merging > NUMA API and hugepage COW. That would just make the merging later harder. Making it common first and then adding features would be better. -Andi