From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752711AbcDVJtp (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Apr 2016 05:49:45 -0400 Received: from mail-lf0-f52.google.com ([209.85.215.52]:35675 "EHLO mail-lf0-f52.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751796AbcDVJsT (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Apr 2016 05:48:19 -0400 Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 12:48:15 +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: <20160422094815.GB7336@node.shutemov.name> References: <1461176698-9714-1-git-send-email-yang.shi@linaro.org> <5717EDDB.1060704@linaro.org> <20160421073050.GA32611@node.shutemov.name> <57195A87.4050408@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <57195A87.4050408@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 Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 03:56:07PM -0700, Shi, Yang wrote: > On 4/21/2016 12:30 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > >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? > > Sorry, I don't quite understand you. Do you mean pte_* functions? See handle_pte_fault(), we do the same for pte there what huge_pmd_set_accessed() does for pmd. I think we should be consistent here: either both are abstructed into functions or both open-coded. -- Kirill A. Shutemov