Messages in this thread | | | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH v3 1/6] mm: Don't unmap gup()ed page | Date | Wed, 15 Apr 2009 00:42:14 +1000 |
| |
On Wednesday 15 April 2009 00:32:52 Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 12:26:34AM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > > Andrea: I didn't veto that set_bit change of yours as such. I just > > I know you didn't ;) > > > noted there could be more atomic operations. Actually I would > > welcome more comparison between our two approaches, but they seem > > Agree about the welcome of comparison, it'd be nice to measure it the > enterprise workloads that showed the gup_fast gain in the first place.
I think we should be able to ask IBM to run some tests, provided they still have machines available to do so. Although I don't want to waste their time so we need to have something that has got past initial code review and has a chance of being merged.
If we get that far, then I can ask them to run tests definitely.
| |