On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 23:06:45 -0800 Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy at goop.org> wrote: > Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 18:25:00 -0800 Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy at goop.org> wrote: > > > > > >> Add a new mm function apply_to_page_range()[...] > > There was some discussion about this sort of thing last week. The > > consensus was that it's better to run the callback against a whole pmd's > > worth of ptes, mainly to amortise the callback's cost (a lot). > > > > It was implemented in > > ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.20/2.6.20-mm1/broken-out/smaps-extract-pmd-walker-from-smaps-code.patch > > Yes I was looking at that and wondering what the upshot would be. I'll > have a closer look, but it seems like it should be usable. It's a question of who-merges-first. I wasn't planning on merging the smaps stuff into 2.6.21. Perhaps the best approach is to proceed as-is and clean things up once it's all merged. I guess your pte-at-a-time walker could be quite simply implemented underneath the smaps pmd-at-a-time walker.
