Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 18 Dec 2009 06:17:54 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [mm][RFC][PATCH 0/11] mm accessor updates. |
| |
* Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org> 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.
Ingo
| |