[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140408173031.GS10526@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 19:30:31 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Linux-X86 <x86@...nel.org>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Steven Noonan <steven@...inklabs.net>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] Use an alternative to _PAGE_PROTNONE for
_PAGE_NUMA v2
On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 05:46:52PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> Someone will ask why automatic NUMA balancing hints do not use "real"
> PROT_NONE but as it would need VMA information to do that on all
> architectures it would mean that VMA-fixups would be required when marking
> PTEs for NUMA hinting faults so would be expensive.
Like this:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/11/13/431
That used the generic PROT_NONE infrastructure and compared, on fault,
the page protection bits against the vma->vm_page_prot bits?
So the objection to that approach was the vma-> dereference in
pte_numa() ?
--
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