On 2012年06月30日 21:04, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 02:58:29PM +0800, Nai Xia wrote:
OK, I think I'd stop discussing this topic now. Without strict and comprehensive
research on this topic, further arguments seems to me to be purely based on
imagination.
I suggest to consider how ptep_clear_and_test_young works on the
pte_young bit on the VM swapping code. Then apply your "concern" to
the pte_young bit scan. If you can't NAK the swapping code in the
kernel, well I guess you can't nack AutoNUMA as well because of that
specific concern.
And no I'm not saying this is trivial or obvious, I appreciate your
thoughts a lot, just I'm quite convinced this is a subtle detail but
an irrelevant one that gets lost in the noise.
If you insist on ignoring any constructive suggestions from others,
it's pretty much ok to do so. But I (and possibly many others who are
watching)
am pretty much possible to do a LOL to your development style.
Well if you think answering your emails means ignoring your
suggestions, be my guest.
Thanks for you kindness, I was just feeling a little bit uncomfortable
about Dor's tune of "Anyone can beat anything". It's OK now, since
anyone with eyes can easily find out I am not a spamming person on
this list.
Thanks,
Nai
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>