From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751933AbcDUHbA (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Apr 2016 03:31:00 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f48.google.com ([74.125.82.48]:35559 "EHLO mail-wm0-f48.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751767AbcDUHa6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Apr 2016 03:30:58 -0400 Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 10:30:50 +0300 From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" 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 Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: move huge_pmd_set_accessed out of huge_memory.c Message-ID: <20160421073050.GA32611@node.shutemov.name> References: <1461176698-9714-1-git-send-email-yang.shi@linaro.org> <5717EDDB.1060704@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5717EDDB.1060704@linaro.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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? -- Kirill A. Shutemov