[lkml]   [2007]   [Oct]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: remove zero_page (was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24)
    On Wednesday 10 October 2007 12:22, Linus Torvalds wrote:
    > On Tue, 9 Oct 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
    > > Where do you suggest I go from here? Is there any way I can
    > > convince you to try it? Make it a config option? (just kidding)
    > No, I'll take the damn patch, but quite frankly, I think your arguments
    > suck.
    > I've told you so before, and asked for numbers, and all you do is

    I gave 2 other numbers. After that, it really doesn't matter if I give
    you 2 numbers or 200, because it wouldn't change the fact that there
    are 3 programs using the ZERO_PAGE that we'll never know about.

    > handwave. And this is like the *third*time*, and you don't even seem to
    > admit that you're handwaving.

    I think I've always admitted I'm handwaving in my assertion that programs
    would not be using the zero page. My handwaving is an attempt to show that
    I have some vaguely reasonable reasons to think it will be OK to remove it.
    That's all.

    > So let's do it, but dammit:
    > - make sure there aren't any invalid statements like this in the final
    > commit message.

    Was the last one OK?

    > - if somebody shows that you were wrong, and points to a real load,
    > please never *ever* make excuses for this again, ok?
    > Is that a deal? I hope we'll never need to hear about this again, but I
    > really object to the way you've tried to "sell" this thing, by basically
    > starting out dishonest about what the problem was,

    The dishonesty in the changelog is more of an oversight than an attempt
    to get it merged. It never even crossed my mind that you would be fooled
    by it ;) To prove my point: the *first* approach I posted to fix this
    problem was exactly a patch to special-case the zero_page refcounting
    which was removed with my PageReserved patch. Neither Hugh nor yourself
    liked it one bit!

    So I have no particular bias against the zero page or problem admitting
    I introduced the issue. I do just think this could be a nice opportunity
    to try getting rid of the zero page and simplifiy things.

    > and even now I've yet
    > to see a *single* performance number even though I've asked for them
    > (except for the problem case, which was introduced by *you*)

    Basically: I don't know what else to show you! I expect it would be
    relatively difficult to find a measurable difference between no zero-page
    and zero-page with no refcounting problem. Precisely because I can't
    find anything that really makes use of it. Again: what numbers can I
    get for you that would make you feel happier about it?

    Anyway, before you change your mind: it's a deal! If somebody screams
    then I'll have a patch for you to reintroduce the zero page minus
    refcounting the next day.
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2007-10-10 09:55    [W:0.028 / U:11.732 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site