From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754054AbYLRWXx (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:23:53 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752154AbYLRWXn (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:23:43 -0500 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:63509 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752131AbYLRWXm (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:23:42 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.36,245,1228118400"; d="scan'208";a="475211290" Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 14:23:41 -0800 From: "Pallipadi, Venkatesh" To: Nick Piggin Cc: "Pallipadi, Venkatesh" , "mingo@elte.hu" , "tglx@linutronix.de" , "hpa@zytor.com" , "akpm@linux-foundation.org" , "hugh@veritas.com" , "arjan@infradead.org" , "jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org" , "rdreier@cisco.com" , "jeremy@goop.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "Siddha, Suresh B" Subject: Re: [patch 3/7] x86 PAT: hooks in generic vm code to help archs to track pfnmap regions - v3 Message-ID: <20081218222340.GC3331@linux-os.sc.intel.com> References: <20081218194126.963894000@intel.com> <20081218194617.408164000@intel.com> <20081218213557.GF10681@wotan.suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20081218213557.GF10681@wotan.suse.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 01:35:57PM -0800, Nick Piggin wrote: > On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 11:41:29AM -0800, venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com wrote: > > Introduce generic hooks in remap_pfn_range and vm_insert_pfn and > > corresponding copy and free routines with reserve and free tracking. > > These should be inline so that they can be folded out (I'm sure gcc > with -Os and "optimize" inlining will do something stupid here). > Also, the normal way to add such arch hooks is to put the default > into asm-generic and have other archs include it... that would be > nicer than sticking it into mm/memory.c wouldn't it? I did check that these calls were optimized by gcc when there is no arch specific definitions. But, as you pointed out, it should be cleaner to put this in asm-generic, though I may have to touch more files. > Sigh, fork/exit paths slow down yet again. But oh well. Maybe can > you add some branch hints? OK. Will add branch hints for these.. Thanks, Venki