On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 13:41 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote: > Lee Revell wrote: > > > > Agreed, it would be much better to optimize this away than just add a > > scheduling point. It seems like we could do this lazily. > > > > Oh? What do you mean by lazy? IMO it is sort of implemented lazily now. > That is, we are too lazy to refcount page table pages in fastpaths, so > that pushes a lot of work to unmap time. Not necessarily a bad trade-off, > mind you. Just something I'm looking into. >
I guess I was thinking we could be even more lazy, and somehow defer it until after unmap time (in lieu of memory pressure that is). Actually that's kind of what a lock break would do. Lee - 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/
