From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e23smtp08.au.ibm.com (e23smtp08.au.ibm.com [202.81.31.141]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "e23smtp08.au.ibm.com", Issuer "GeoTrust SSL CA" (not verified)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 935EA2C033B for ; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 20:28:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from /spool/local by e23smtp08.au.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 19:28:31 +1000 Received: from d23relay04.au.ibm.com (d23relay04.au.ibm.com [9.190.234.120]) by d23dlp03.au.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D5CE3578050 for ; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 20:28:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from d23av03.au.ibm.com (d23av03.au.ibm.com [9.190.234.97]) by d23relay04.au.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id rAI9AclP7799090 for ; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 20:10:38 +1100 Received: from d23av03.au.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d23av03.au.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id rAI9SM6Q019627 for ; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 20:28:22 +1100 From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" To: benh@kernel.crashing.org, paulus@samba.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: [PATCH -V2 0/5] powerpc: mm: Numa faults support for ppc64 Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 14:58:08 +0530 Message-Id: <1384766893-10189-1-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi, This patch series add support for numa faults on ppc64 architecture. We steal the _PAGE_COHERENCE bit and use that for indicating _PAGE_NUMA. We clear the _PAGE_PRESENT bit and also invalidate the hpte entry on setting _PAGE_NUMA. The next fault on that page will be considered a numa fault. Changes from V1: * Dropped few patches related pmd update because batch handling of pmd pages got dropped from core code 0f19c17929c952c6f0966d93ab05558e7bf814cc "mm: numa: Do not batch handle PMD pages" This also avoided the large lock contention on page_table_lock that we observed with the previous series. -aneesh