On Tue, 23 May 2006, Chen, Kenneth W wrote: > > Except that, instead of agreeing it should be renamed, I say it should > > be deleted entirely. It seems to represent that ia64 has an empty > > update_mmu_cache, and someone decided to add a new interface instead > > of giving ia64 that work to do in its update_mmu_cache. > > My memory recollects that it was done just like what you suggested: > overloading update_mmu_cache for ia64, but it was vetoed by several mm > experts. And as a result a new function was introduced. lazy_mmu_prot_update is always called after update_mmu_cache except when we change permissions (hugetlb_change_protection() and change_pte_range()). So if we conflate those two then arches may have to be updated to avoid flushing the mmu if we only modified protections. I think update_mmu_cache() should be dropped in page_wrprotect_one() in order to be consistent scheme. And avoiding mmu flushes will increase the performance of page_wrprotect_one.. lazy_mmu_prot_update must be there since we are changing permissions. - : send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|