[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090126235715.GB8726@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 00:57:15 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Ying Han <yinghan@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mikew@...gle.com,
rientjes@...gle.com, rohitseth@...gle.com, hugh@...itas.com,
a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, hpa@...or.com, edwintorok@...il.com,
lee.schermerhorn@...com, npiggin@...e.de
Subject: Re: [RFC v2][PATCH]page_fault retry with NOPAGE_RETRY
* Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> I think that a good way to present this is as a preparatory patch:
> "convert the fourth argument to handle_mm_fault() from a boolean to a
> flags word". That would be a simple do-nothing patch which affects all
> architectures and which ideally would break the build at any unconverted
> code sites. (Change the argument order?)
why not do what i suggested: refactor do_page_fault() into a platform
specific / kernel-internal faults and into a generic-user-pte function.
That alone would increase readability i suspect.
Then the 'retry' is multiple calls from handle_pte_fault().
Or something like that.
It looks wrong to me to pass another flag through this hot codepath, just
to express a property that the _highlevel_ code is interested in.
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists