On 4/22/2016 2:48 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
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.
Thanks for directing to this code.
I think we should be consistent here: either both are abstructed into
functions or both open-coded.
I'm supposed functions sound better. However, do_wp_page has to be
called with pte lock acquired. So, the abstracted function has to call it.
Thanks,
Yang
--
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>