[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160422094815.GB7336@node.shutemov.name>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 12:48:15 +0300
From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
To: "Shi, Yang" <yang.shi@...aro.org>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com,
aarcange@...hat.com, hughd@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: move huge_pmd_set_accessed out of huge_memory.c
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 03:56:07PM -0700, Shi, Yang wrote:
> On 4/21/2016 12:30 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> >On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 02:00:11PM -0700, Shi, Yang wrote:
> >>Hi folks,
> >>
> >>I didn't realize pmd_* functions are protected by
> >>CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE on the most architectures before I made this
> >>change.
> >>
> >>Before I fix all the affected architectures code, I want to check if you
> >>guys think this change is worth or not?
> >>
> >>Thanks,
> >>Yang
> >>
> >>On 4/20/2016 11:24 AM, Yang Shi wrote:
> >>>huge_pmd_set_accessed is only called by __handle_mm_fault from memory.c,
> >>>move the definition to memory.c and make it static like create_huge_pmd and
> >>>wp_huge_pmd.
> >>>
> >>>Signed-off-by: Yang Shi <yang.shi@...aro.org>
> >
> >On pte side we have the same functionality open-coded. Should we do the
> >same for pmd? Or change pte side the same way?
>
> Sorry, I don't quite understand you. Do you mean pte_* functions?
See handle_pte_fault(), we do the same for pte there what
huge_pmd_set_accessed() does for pmd.
I think we should be consistent here: either both are abstructed into
functions or both open-coded.
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
Powered by blists - more mailing lists