From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: steve.capper@linaro.org (Steve Capper)
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 10:32:38 +0000
Subject: [PATCH 2/3] arm64: mm: Route pmd thp functions through pte
 equivalents
In-Reply-To: <20140212101423.GC29702@arm.com>
References: <1391696171-8922-1-git-send-email-steve.capper@linaro.org>
 <1391696171-8922-3-git-send-email-steve.capper@linaro.org>
 <20140212101423.GC29702@arm.com>
Message-ID: <20140212103237.GA12778@linaro.org>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 10:14:23AM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 02:16:10PM +0000, Steve Capper wrote:
> > Rather than have separate hugetlb and transparent huge page pmd
> > manipulation functions, re-wire our thp functions to simply call the
> > pte equivalents.
> 
> That's one thing I don't like about hugetlb, casting pmds to ptes. Do we
> actually save much in terms of code clean-up by doing this?

Hi Catalin,

At the moment we have ptes and hugetlb ptes behaving in the same way so
they both make use of PTE_WRITE. I thought it would be more logical to
tie the THP code to the pte manipulation functions too rather than
duplicate the PTE_WRITE logic in a separate PMD_WRITE. This makes
future pte changes apply to THP too automatically (along with hugetlb).

Cheers,
-- 
Steve