On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 01:56:23PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > This also looks very debatable indeed. The only performance numbers quoted > are: > > > This results in f.e. the Aim9 brk performance test to got down by 10-15%. > > which just seems like a total disaster. > > The whole series looks bad, in fact. Lack of authorship, bad single-line
Glad you agree. Note that the fact the whole series looks bad, is _exactly_ why I couldn't let Christoph keep going with mmu-notifier-core at the very end of his patchset. I had to move it at the top to have a chance to get the KVM and GRU requirements merged in 2.6.26. I think the spinlock->rwsem conversion is ok under config option, as you can see I complained myself to various of those patches and I'll take care they're in a mergeable state the moment I submit them. What XPMEM requires are different semantics for the methods, and we never had to do any blocking I/O during vmtruncate before, now we have to. And I don't see a problem in making the conversion from spinlock->rwsem only if CONFIG_XPMEM=y as I doubt XPMEM works on anything but ia64. Please ignore all patches but mmu-notifier-core. I regularly forward _only_ mmu-notifier-core to Andrew, that's the only one that is in merge-ready status, everything else is just so XPMEM can test and we can keep discussing it to bring it in a mergeable state like mmu-notifier-core already is. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100. Use priority code J8TL2D2. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone _______________________________________________ kvm-devel mailing list kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
