[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121101104945.GQ3888@suse.de>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 10:49:45 +0000
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@...ibm.com>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/31] sched, numa, mm, s390/thp: Implement pmd_pgprot()
for s390
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 02:16:24PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> From: Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@...ibm.com>
>
> This patch adds an implementation of pmd_pgprot() for s390,
> in preparation to future THP changes.
>
The additional pmd_pgprot implementations only are necessary if we want
to preserve the PROT_NONE protections across a split but that somewhat
forces that PROT_NONE be used as the protection bit across all
architectures. Is that possible? I think I would prefer that
prot-protection-across-splits just went away until it was proven
necessary and potentially recoded in terms of _PAGE_NUMA and friends
instead.
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
--
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