From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sunset.davemloft.net (unknown [74.93.104.97]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A425CDDDCA for ; Thu, 10 May 2007 17:12:34 +1000 (EST) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 00:12:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20070510.001234.126579706.davem@davemloft.net> To: benh@kernel.crashing.org Subject: Re: vm changes from linux-2.6.14 to linux-2.6.15 From: David Miller In-Reply-To: <1178778583.14928.210.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20070509231937.ea254c26.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1178778583.14928.210.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: mark@mtfhpc.demon.co.uk, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, wli@holomorphy.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, andrea@suse.de, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 16:29:43 +1000 > > > We never seemed to reach completion here? > > Well, I'm waiting for other people comments too... as I said earlier, > I'm not too fan of burrying the update_mmu_cache() inside > ptep_set_access_flags(), but perhaps we could remove the whole logic of > reading the old PTE & comparing it, and instead have > ptep_set_access_flags() do that locally and return to the caller wether > a change occured that requires update_mmu_cache() to be called. > > That way, archs who don't actually need update_mmu_cache() under some > circumstances will be able to return 0 there. > > What do you guys thing ? I think that's a good idea.