* Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx> wrote: > That said, your approach just ends up being heavier. [...] Well, it's more fundamental than just whether to inline or not (which I think should be a separate optimization and I won't object to two-instruction variants the slightest) - but you ended up open-coding change_protection() via: change_prot_numa_range() et al which is a far bigger problem... Do you have valid technical arguments in favor of that duplication? If you just embrace the PROT_NONE reuse approach of numa/core then 90% of the differences in your tree will disappear and you'll have a code base very close to where numa/core was 3 weeks ago already, modulo a handful of renames. It's not like PROT_NONE will go away anytime soon. PROT_NONE is available on every architecture, and we use the exact semantics of it in the scheduler, we just happen to drive it from a special worklet instead of a syscall, and happen to have a callback to the faults when they happen... Please stay open to that approach. Thanks, Ingo -- 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>