Hello, On Thu, 2013-10-10 at 12:46 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 10:24:09AM -0600, Toshi Kani wrote: > > > We're going round and round. You're saying that using SRAT isn't > > > worse than what came before while failing to illustrate how committing > > > to invasive changes would eventually lead to something better. "it > > > isn't worse" isn't much of an argument. > > > > We did avoid moving up the ACPI table init function per your suggestion. > > I guess I do not understand why you still concerned about using SRAT... > > As you wrote above, SRAT is not enough to support device granularity. > We need to parse the device hierarchy too before setting up page > tables and one of the previous arguments was "it's only SRAT". It > doesn't instill confidence when there doesn't seem to be much long > term planning going on especially as the general quality of the > patches isn't particularly high. I find it difficult to believe that > this effort as it currently stands is likely to reach full solution > and as such it feels much safer to opt for a simpler, less dangerous > approach for immedate use, for which either approach doesn't make much > of difference. Can you elaborate why we need to parse the device hierarchy before setting up page tables? Thanks, -Toshi -- 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>