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@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > >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 -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>