Re: [mm][RFC][PATCH 0/11] mm accessor updates.

From: Ingo Molnar
Date: Fri Dec 18 2009 - 00:18:17 EST

* Christoph Lameter <cl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > That is why I think that the accessors are a good first step.
> >
> > They're not, they're daft, they operate on a global resource mm_struct,
> > that's the whole problem, giving it a different name isn't going to solve
> > anything.
> It is not about naming. The accessors hide the locking mechanism for
> mmap_sem. Then you can change the locking in a central place.
> The locking may even become configurable later. Maybe an embedded solution
> will want the existing scheme but dual quad socket may want a distributed
> reference counter to avoid bouncing cachelines on faults.

Hiding the locking is pretty much the worst design decision one can make.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at