From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pa0-f71.google.com (mail-pa0-f71.google.com [209.85.220.71]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00AA86B007E for ; Fri, 29 Apr 2016 14:09:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pa0-f71.google.com with SMTP id dx6so181777694pad.0 for ; Fri, 29 Apr 2016 11:09:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pf0-x22d.google.com (mail-pf0-x22d.google.com. [2607:f8b0:400e:c00::22d]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id q64si17542598pfb.1.2016.04.29.11.09.38 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 29 Apr 2016 11:09:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pf0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id y69so51050374pfb.1 for ; Fri, 29 Apr 2016 11:09:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: move huge_pmd_set_accessed out of huge_memory.c References: <1461176698-9714-1-git-send-email-yang.shi@linaro.org> <5717EDDB.1060704@linaro.org> <20160421073050.GA32611@node.shutemov.name> <57195A87.4050408@linaro.org> <20160422094815.GB7336@node.shutemov.name> From: "Shi, Yang" Message-ID: <0357941c-d7ce-3ba9-c24f-9d2599429a8a@linaro.org> Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 11:09:36 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160422094815.GB7336@node.shutemov.name> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com, aarcange@redhat.com, hughd@google.com, mgorman@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org 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 >>> >>> 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@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org