Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 16 Nov 2012 19:04:04 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 06/43] mm: numa: Make pte_numa() and pmd_numa() a generic implementation |
| |
* Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> 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
| |