Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 20 Oct 2012 03:15:28 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] rename NUMA fault handling functions | From | Michel Lespinasse <> |
| |
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 4:41 AM, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> wrote: > On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 17:20 -0400, Rik van Riel wrote: >> Having the function name indicate what the function is used >> for makes the code a little easier to read. Furthermore, >> the fault handling code largely consists of do_...._page >> functions. > > I don't much care either way, but I was thinking walken might want to > use something similar to do WSS estimation, in which case the NUMA name > is just as wrong.
Right now my working set estimation only uses A bits, so let's not make that a concern here.
I think the _numa names are a bit better than _prot_none, but still a bit confusing. I don't have any great suggestions but I think there should at least be a comment above pte_numa() that explains what the numa ptes are (the comment within the function doesn't qualify as it only explains how the numa ptes are different from the ones in PROT_NONE vmas...)
-- Michel "Walken" Lespinasse A program is never fully debugged until the last user dies.
| |