[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140112135600.GA15051@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 14:56:00 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Alex Thorlton <athorlton@....com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: thp: Add per-mm_struct flag to control THP
On 01/11, Alex Thorlton wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 04:53:37PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > I simply can't understand, this all looks like overkill. Can't you simply add
> >
> > #idfef CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE
> > case GET:
> > error = test_bit(MMF_THP_DISABLE);
> > break;
> > case PUT:
> > if (arg2)
> > set_bit();
> > else
> > clear_bit();
> > break;
> > #endif
> >
> > into sys_prctl() ?
>
> That's probably a better solution. I wasn't sure whether or not it was
> better to have two functions to handle this, or to have one function
> handle both. If you think it's better to just handle both with one,
> that's easy enough to change.
Personally I think sys_prctl() can handle this itself, without a helper.
But of course I won't argue, this is up to you.
My only point is, the kernel is already huge ;) Imho it makes sense to
try to lessen the code size, when the logic is simple.
Oleg.
--
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