From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lf0-f69.google.com (mail-lf0-f69.google.com [209.85.215.69]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 590B86B007E for ; Fri, 22 Apr 2016 05:48:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-lf0-f69.google.com with SMTP id 68so13786795lfq.2 for ; Fri, 22 Apr 2016 02:48:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf0-x22c.google.com (mail-lf0-x22c.google.com. [2a00:1450:4010:c07::22c]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id f203si4246814lfe.186.2016.04.22.02.48.17 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 22 Apr 2016 02:48:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id g184so76142535lfb.3 for ; Fri, 22 Apr 2016 02:48:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 12:48:15 +0300 From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: move huge_pmd_set_accessed out of huge_memory.c Message-ID: <20160422094815.GB7336@node.shutemov.name> References: <1461176698-9714-1-git-send-email-yang.shi@linaro.org> <5717EDDB.1060704@linaro.org> <20160421073050.GA32611@node.shutemov.name> <57195A87.4050408@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <57195A87.4050408@linaro.org> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: "Shi, Yang" 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 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. I think we should be consistent here: either both are abstructed into functions or both open-coded. -- Kirill A. Shutemov -- 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