On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 11:27:13AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Nick Piggin wrote:
> >
> > > So I disagree with this patch series. It has real downsides. There's a
> > > reason we have the offset.
> >
> > Yes, there is a reason, I detailed it in the changelog and got rid of it.
>
> And I'm not applying it. I'd be crazy to replace good code by code that is
> objectively _worse_.
>
And you're not? Damn.
> The fact that you _document_ that it's worse doesn't make it any better.
>
> The places that you improve (in the other patches) seem to have nothing at
> all to do with the counter skew issue, so I don't see the point.
>
You know, I believe you're right. I needed the de-skewing patch for
something unrelated and it seemed that it opened the possibility for
the following optimisations (ie. because we no longer touch a page
after its refcount goes to zero).
But actually it doesn't matter that we might touch page_count, only
that we not clear PageLRU. So the enabler is simply moving the
TestClearPageLRU after the get_page_testone.
So I'll respin the patches without the de-skewing and the series
will become much smaller and neater.
> So let me repeat: WHY DID YOU MAKE THE CODE WORSE?
>
You've never bothered me about that until now...
Thanks for the feedback!
Nick
-
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]
