[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFxwmysVRCkBKFA88m_h0Byb0-2QvWn0_2rb_QNb8Eeedg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 10:42:29 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Aneesh Kumar <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, xfs@....sgi.com,
ppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] mm: numa: Mark huge PTEs young when clearing NUMA
hinting faults
On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> Completely untested, but that "just
> or in the new protection bits" is what pnf_pte() does just a few lines
> above this.
Hmm. Looking at this, we do *not* want to set _PAGE_ACCESSED when we
turn a page into PROT_NONE or mark it for numa faulting. Nor do we
want to set it for mprotect for random pages that we haven't actually
accessed, just changed the protections for.
So my patch was obviously wrong, and I should feel bad for suggesting
it. I'm a moron, and my expectations that "pte_modify()" would just
take the accessed bit from the vm_page_prot field was stupid and
wrong.
Mel's patch is the right thing to do.
Linus
--
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