[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <25c0c700-656c-4a8a-8ef1-5093581cf25c@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2025 09:13:32 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Dev Jain <dev.jain@....com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Cc: ryan.roberts@....com, willy@...radead.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org,
Liam.Howlett@...cle.com, lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com, vbabka@...e.cz,
jannh@...gle.com, anshuman.khandual@....com, peterx@...hat.com,
joey.gouly@....com, ioworker0@...il.com, baohua@...nel.org,
kevin.brodsky@....com, quic_zhenhuah@...cinc.com,
christophe.leroy@...roup.eu, yangyicong@...ilicon.com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, hughd@...gle.com,
yang@...amperecomputing.com, ziy@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] mm: Optimize mprotect() by batch-skipping PTEs
>> ... likely with a better function name,
>
>
> I want to be able to reuse the folio from vm_normal_folio(), and we also
> need
>
> nr_ptes to know how much to skip, so if there is no objection in passing
> int *nr_ptes,
>
> or struct folio **foliop to this new function, then I'll carry on with
> your suggestion :)
Can you quickly prototype what you have in mind and paste it here? Will
make it easier :)
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists