> maybe. I'm not entirely convinced... (I like the cleanup potential a lot
> code wise.. but if it costs performance, then... well I'd hate to see
> linux get slower for hugetlbfs)
>
> > If not, then I definitely wouldn't
> > mind creating a default_pagetable_ops and calling into that.
>
> ... but without it to be honest, your patch adds nothing real.. there's
> ONE user of your code, and there's no real cleanup unless you get rid of
> all the special casing.... since the special casing is the really ugly
> part of hugetlbfs, not the actual code inside the special case..
Well... I disagree there too :-)
I've been working recently for example on some spufs improvements that
require similar tweaking of the user address space as hugetlbfs. The
problem I have is that while there are hooks in the generic code pretty
much everywhere I need.... they are all hugetlb specific, that is they
call directly into the hugetlb code.
For now, I found ways of doing my stuff without hooking all over the
page table operations (well, I had no real choices) but I can imagine it
making sense to allow something (hugetlb being one of them) to take over
part of the user address space.
Ben.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
