[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121113134910.GB17782@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 14:49:10 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/19] mm: numa: Create basic numa page hinting
infrastructure
* Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de> wrote:
> > But given that most architectures will be just fine reusing
> > the already existing generic PROT_NONE machinery, the far
> > better approach is to do what we've been doing in generic
> > kernel code for the last 10 years: offer a default generic
> > version, and then to offer per arch hooks on a strict
> > as-needed basis, if they want or need to do something weird
> > ...
>
> If they are *not* fine with it, it's a large retrofit because
> the PROT_NONE machinery has been hard-coded throughout. [...]
That was a valid criticism for earlier versions of the NUMA
patches - but should much less be the case in the latest
iterations of the patches:
- it has generic pte_numa() / pmd_numa() instead of using
prot_none() directly
- the key utility functions are named using the _numa pattern,
not *_prot_none*() anymore.
Let us know if you can still see such instances - it's probably
simple oversight.
Thanks,
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