From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-we0-f174.google.com (mail-we0-f174.google.com [74.125.82.174]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 947E36B00B2 for ; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 10:57:53 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-we0-f174.google.com with SMTP id q58so3624348wes.19 for ; Mon, 09 Dec 2013 07:57:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com. [209.132.183.28]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id pc6si4850943wjb.130.2013.12.09.07.57.52 for ; Mon, 09 Dec 2013 07:57:52 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <52A5E87B.9080209@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2013 10:57:47 -0500 From: Rik van Riel MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/18] mm: numa: Clear numa hinting information on mprotect References: <1386572952-1191-1-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de> <1386572952-1191-10-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <1386572952-1191-10-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Mel Gorman Cc: Andrew Morton , Alex Thorlton , Linux-MM , LKML On 12/09/2013 02:09 AM, Mel Gorman wrote: > On a protection change it is no longer clear if the page should be still > accessible. This patch clears the NUMA hinting fault bits on a protection > change. I had to think about this one, because my first thought was "wait, aren't NUMA ptes inaccessible already?". Then I thought about doing things like adding read or write permission in the mprotect, eg. changing from PROT_NONE to PROT_READ ... and it became unclear what to do with the NUMA bit in that case... This patch clears up some confusing situations :) > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org > Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman Reviewed-by: Rik van Riel -- All rights reversed -- 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