Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] Use an alternative to _PAGE_PROTNONE for _PAGE_NUMA v2

[Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>]

On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 10:01:39AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> wrote:
> >
> > If you are ok with leaving _PAGE_NUMA as _PAGE_PROTNONE
> 
> NO I AM NOT!
> 
> Dammit, this feature is f*cking brain-damaged.
> 
> My complaint has been (and continues to be):
> 
>  - either it is 100% the same as PROTNONE, in which case thjat
> _PAGE_NUMA bit had better go away, and you just use the protnone
> helpers!
> 

In which case we'd still use VMAs to distinguish between PROTNONE faults
and NUMA hinting faults. We may still need some special casing. It's plan
b but not my preferred solution at this time.

>  - if it's not the same as PROTNONE, then it damn well needs a different bit.
> 

With this series applied _PAGE_NUMA != _PAGE_PROTNONE.

> You can't have it both ways. You guys tried. The Xen case shows that
> trying to distinguish the two DOES NOT WORK. But even apart from the
> Xen case, it was just a confusing hell.
> 

Which is why I responded with a series that used a different bit instead
of more discussions that would reach the same conclusion. 

> Like Yoda said: "Either they are the same or they are not. There is no 'try'".
> 
> So pick one solution. Don't try to pick the mixed-up half-way case
> that is a disaster and makes no sense.
> 

I picked a solution. The posted series uses a different bit.

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs

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