[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090407222543.GB17934@one.firstfloor.org>
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 00:25:43 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [5/16] POISON: Add support for poison swap entries
On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 05:56:28PM -0400, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Apr 2009, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 05:11:26PM -0400, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > >
> > > Could you separate the semantic changes to flag checking for migration
> >
> > You mean to try_to_unmap?
>
> I mean the changes to checking the pte contents for a migratable /
> swappable page. Those are significant independent from this patchset and
> would be useful to review independently.
Sorry I'm still not quite sure what you're asking for.
Are you asking about the fault path or about try_to_unmap or some
other path?
And why do you want a separate patchset versus merely a separate patch?
(afaik the patches to generic code are already pretty separated)
I don't really change the semantics of the migration or swap code itself
for example. At least not consciously. If I did that would be a bug.
e.g. the changes to try_to_unmap are two stages:
- add flags/action code. Everything should still do the same, just
the flags are passed around differently.
- add a check for an already poisoned page and insert a poison
swap entry for those
-Andi
--
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
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