On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 09:51:47AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > The reason it returned to userland and retried the fault is that this > > should be infrequent enough not to worry about it and this was > > marginally simpler but it could be changed. > > Yeah, that was my suspicion. And as mentioned, returning to user land > might actually help with scheduling and/or signal handling latencies > etc, so it might be the right thing to do. Especially if the > alternative is to just busy-loop. > > > If we don't want to return to userland we should wait on the splitting > > bit and then take the pte walking routines like if the pmd wasn't > > huge. This is not related to the below though. > > How does this patch sound to people? It does the splitting check > before the access bit set (even though I don't think it matters), and > at least talks about the alternatives and the issues a bit. > > Hmm? It looks very fine to me, but I suggest to move it above the pmd_numa() check because of the newly introduced migrate_misplaced_transhuge_page method relying on pmd_same too. Thanks! -- 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>