Re: [PATCH 06/43] mm: numa: Make pte_numa() and pmd_numa() a genericimplementation

[Ingo Molnar]

* Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> That said, your approach just ends up being heavier. [...]

Well, it's more fundamental than just whether to inline or not 
(which I think should be a separate optimization and I won't 
object to two-instruction variants the slightest) - but you 
ended up open-coding change_protection() 
via:

   change_prot_numa_range() et al

which is a far bigger problem...

Do you have valid technical arguments in favor of that 
duplication?

If you just embrace the PROT_NONE reuse approach of numa/core 
then 90% of the differences in your tree will disappear and 
you'll have a code base very close to where numa/core was 3 
weeks ago already, modulo a handful of renames.

It's not like PROT_NONE will go away anytime soon.

PROT_NONE is available on every architecture, and we use the 
exact semantics of it in the scheduler, we just happen to drive 
it from a special worklet instead of a syscall, and happen to 
have a callback to the faults when they happen...

Please stay open to that approach.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/