Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 3 Oct 2007 08:21:51 -0700 (PDT) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: remove zero_page (was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24) |
| |
On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, Nick Piggin wrote: > > I don't know if Linus actually disliked the patch itself, or disliked > my (maybe confusingly worded) rationale?
Yes. I'd happily accept the patch, but I'd want it clarified and made obvious what the problem was - and it wasn't the zero page itself, it was a regression in the VM that made it less palatable.
I also thought that there were potentially better solutions, namely to simply avoid the VM regression, but I also acknowledge that they may not be worth it - I just want them to be on the table.
In short: the real cost of the zero page was the reference counting on the page that we do these days. For example, I really do believe that the problem could fairly easily be fixed by simply not considering zero_page to be a "vm_normal_page()". We already *do* have support for pages not getting ref-counted (since we need it for other things), and I think that zero_page very naturally falls into exactly that situation.
So in many ways, I would think that turning zero-page into a nonrefcounted page (the same way we really do have to do for other things anyway) would be the much more *direct* solution, and in many ways the obvious one.
HOWEVER - if people think that it's easier to remove zero_page, and want to do it for other reasons, *AND* can hopefully even back up the claim that it never matters with numbers (ie that the extra pagefaults just make the whole zero-page thing pointless), then I'd certainly accept the patch.
I'd just want the patch *description* to then also be correct, and blame the right situation, instead of blaming zero-page itself.
Linus - 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/
| |