[lkml]   [2001]   [Oct]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: please revert bogus patch to vmscan.c
On Mon, Oct 29, 2001 at 03:55:59PM -0800, David S. Miller wrote:
> Doing range flushes is not the answer. It is going to be about
> the same cost as doing per-page flushes.
> The cost is doing the cross calls at all, not the granularity in which
> we do them.
> You're refusing to do any work to prove whether your case matters
> at all in real life, and you're calling other people assholes for
> asking that you do so.

See Paul's message. ia64 does the same thing with hardware walked hashed
page tables. Now, do you want to pay for the 2 days of time you want me
to commit to investigating something which is obvious to me? I don't think

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: 2005-03-22 13:18    [W:0.089 / U:1.376 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site