From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753832AbcDUW4O (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Apr 2016 18:56:14 -0400 Received: from mail-pa0-f51.google.com ([209.85.220.51]:33712 "EHLO mail-pa0-f51.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751697AbcDUW4N (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Apr 2016 18:56:13 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: move huge_pmd_set_accessed out of huge_memory.c To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" References: <1461176698-9714-1-git-send-email-yang.shi@linaro.org> <5717EDDB.1060704@linaro.org> <20160421073050.GA32611@node.shutemov.name> 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 From: "Shi, Yang" Message-ID: <57195A87.4050408@linaro.org> Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 15:56:07 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160421073050.GA32611@node.shutemov.name> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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? Thanks, Yang >