[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <6C0B267E-E36D-4014-8308-B948247D7FED@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2022 10:07:02 -0700
From: Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>
To: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
Cc: Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/4] mm: Remember young bit for migration entries
On Jul 28, 2022, at 6:40 PM, Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com> wrote:
> [Marking as RFC; only x86 is supported for now, plan to add a few more
> archs when there's a formal version]
>
> Problem
> =======
>
> When migrate a page, right now we always mark the migrated page as old.
> The reason could be that we don't really know whether the page is hot or
> cold, so we could have taken it a default negative assuming that's safer.
Looks good to me.
I just wonder whether the order of the patches should be different. I always
understood that separating the “enabling” patch from the others is not a
good practice, since it complicates bisection. I guess it is more of a minor
issue for such a small patch-set…
Powered by blists - more mailing lists