On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 17:02:58 -0700 Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> You're too kind. wli's comment on the first version of this patch was
>> something along the lines of "this patch causes a surprising amount of
>> damage for what little it achieves".
On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 17:02:58 -0700 Jeremy Fitzhardinge [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
You're too kind. wli's comment on the first version of this patch was
something along the lines of this patch causes a surprising amount of
damage for what little it achieves.
On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 05:28:44PM
Andrew Morton wrote:
> Thanks. A replacement would suit.
>
Subject: Allow paravirt backend to choose kernel PMD sharing
Normally when running in PAE mode, the 4th PMD maps the kernel address
space, which can be shared among all processes (since they all need
the same kernel mappings).
Xen,
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 17:40:13 -0700 Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Something like that. I don't want to redo my patch if we're going to change
> > your patch ;)
> >
>
> OK. I won't specifically redo it on top of your patches, but I'll
> rework it
Andrew Morton wrote:
> Something like that. I don't want to redo my patch if we're going to change
> your patch ;)
>
OK. I won't specifically redo it on top of your patches, but I'll
rework it to remove the inline function and add the if() statement. Do
you want an incremental update or a
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 17:02:58 -0700 Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > All this paravirt stuff isn't making the kernel any prettier, is it?
> >
>
> You're too kind. wli's comment on the first version of this patch was
> something along the lines of
Andrew Morton wrote:
> All this paravirt stuff isn't making the kernel any prettier, is it?
>
You're too kind. wli's comment on the first version of this patch was
something along the lines of "this patch causes a surprising amount of
damage for what little it achieves".
>> ...
>>
>>
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 12:11:58 -0700 Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Normally when running in PAE mode, the 4th PMD maps the kernel address
> space, which can be shared among all processes (since they all need
> the same kernel mappings).
>
> Xen, however, does not allow guests
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 12:11:58 -0700 Jeremy Fitzhardinge [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Normally when running in PAE mode, the 4th PMD maps the kernel address
space, which can be shared among all processes (since they all need
the same kernel mappings).
Xen, however, does not allow guests to have
Andrew Morton wrote:
All this paravirt stuff isn't making the kernel any prettier, is it?
You're too kind. wli's comment on the first version of this patch was
something along the lines of this patch causes a surprising amount of
damage for what little it achieves.
...
-#ifndef
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 17:02:58 -0700 Jeremy Fitzhardinge [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Andrew Morton wrote:
All this paravirt stuff isn't making the kernel any prettier, is it?
You're too kind. wli's comment on the first version of this patch was
something along the lines of this patch
Andrew Morton wrote:
Something like that. I don't want to redo my patch if we're going to change
your patch ;)
OK. I won't specifically redo it on top of your patches, but I'll
rework it to remove the inline function and add the if() statement. Do
you want an incremental update or a
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 17:40:13 -0700 Jeremy Fitzhardinge [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Andrew Morton wrote:
Something like that. I don't want to redo my patch if we're going to change
your patch ;)
OK. I won't specifically redo it on top of your patches, but I'll
rework it to remove the
Andrew Morton wrote:
Thanks. A replacement would suit.
Subject: Allow paravirt backend to choose kernel PMD sharing
Normally when running in PAE mode, the 4th PMD maps the kernel address
space, which can be shared among all processes (since they all need
the same kernel mappings).
Xen,
* Christoph Lameter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Acked-by: Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> for all thats worth since I am not a i386 specialist.
>
> How much of the issues with page struct sharing between slab and arch code
> does this address?
I think the answer is 'none yet.' It
Christoph Lameter wrote:
> Acked-by: Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> for all thats worth since I am not a i386 specialist.
>
> How much of the issues with page struct sharing between slab and arch code
> does this address?
>
I haven't been following that thread as closely as I
Acked-by: Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
for all thats worth since I am not a i386 specialist.
How much of the issues with page struct sharing between slab and arch code
does this address?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message
Normally when running in PAE mode, the 4th PMD maps the kernel address
space, which can be shared among all processes (since they all need
the same kernel mappings).
Xen, however, does not allow guests to have the kernel pmd shared
between page tables, so parameterize pgtable.c to allow both
Normally when running in PAE mode, the 4th PMD maps the kernel address
space, which can be shared among all processes (since they all need
the same kernel mappings).
Xen, however, does not allow guests to have the kernel pmd shared
between page tables, so parameterize pgtable.c to allow both
Acked-by: Christoph Lameter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
for all thats worth since I am not a i386 specialist.
How much of the issues with page struct sharing between slab and arch code
does this address?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to
Christoph Lameter wrote:
Acked-by: Christoph Lameter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
for all thats worth since I am not a i386 specialist.
How much of the issues with page struct sharing between slab and arch code
does this address?
I haven't been following that thread as closely as I should be, so
* Christoph Lameter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Acked-by: Christoph Lameter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
for all thats worth since I am not a i386 specialist.
How much of the issues with page struct sharing between slab and arch code
does this address?
I think the answer is 'none yet.' It uses page
22 matches
Mail list logo
