[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5083F720.2030003@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 09:22:40 -0400
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, mingo@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, aarcange@...hat.com,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/2] numa, mm: Rename the PROT_NONE fault handling functions
On 10/21/2012 08:50 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>
>>>> I don't much care either way, but I was thinking walken
>>>> might want to use something similar to do WSS estimation,
>>>> in which case the NUMA name is just as wrong.
>>>
>>> That's a good point. I had not considered other uses of the
>>> same code.
>>
>> Renaming the functions for more clarity still makes sense IMO:
>> we could give it a _wss or _working_set prefix/postfix?
>
> So, to not drop your patch on the floor I've modified it as per
> the patch below.
>
> The _wss() names signal that these handlers are used for a
> specific purpose, they are not related to the regular PROT_NONE
> handling code.
Michel indicated that he does not use PROT_NONE for his
working set estimation code, but instead checks the
accessed bits in the page tables.
Since NUMA migration is the only user of PROT_NONE ptes
in normal vmas, maybe _numa is the right suffix after all?
--
All rights reversed
--
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