[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <32c80b6a-28c6-bf63-ed7b-6a042ae18e8f@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 09:49:29 +0200
From: Laurent Dufour <ldufour@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, peterz@...radead.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, kirill@...temov.name,
ak@...ux.intel.com, mhocko@...nel.org, dave@...olabs.net,
jack@...e.cz, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
benh@...nel.crashing.org, mpe@...erman.id.au, paulus@...ba.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, hpa@...or.com,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
kemi.wang@...el.com, sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com,
Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
haren@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, khandual@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
npiggin@...il.com, bsingharora@...il.com,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 01/24] mm: Introduce CONFIG_SPECULATIVE_PAGE_FAULT
Hi David,
Thanks a lot for your deep review on this series.
On 25/03/2018 23:50, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2018, Laurent Dufour wrote:
>
>> This configuration variable will be used to build the code needed to
>> handle speculative page fault.
>>
>> By default it is turned off, and activated depending on architecture
>> support.
>>
>> Suggested-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
>> Signed-off-by: Laurent Dufour <ldufour@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> ---
>> mm/Kconfig | 3 +++
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/Kconfig b/mm/Kconfig
>> index abefa573bcd8..07c566c88faf 100644
>> --- a/mm/Kconfig
>> +++ b/mm/Kconfig
>> @@ -759,3 +759,6 @@ config GUP_BENCHMARK
>> performance of get_user_pages_fast().
>>
>> See tools/testing/selftests/vm/gup_benchmark.c
>> +
>> +config SPECULATIVE_PAGE_FAULT
>> + bool
>
> Should this be configurable even if the arch supports it?
Actually, this is not configurable unless by manually editing the .config file.
I made it this way on the Thomas's request :
https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/1/15/969
That sounds to be the smarter way to achieve that, isn't it ?
Laurent.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists