Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: thp: Add per-mm_struct flag to control THP

[Alex Thorlton]

On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 02:56:00PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 01/11, Alex Thorlton wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 04:53:37PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > > I simply can't understand, this all looks like overkill. Can't you simply add
> > >
> > > 	#idfef CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE
> > > 	case GET:
> > > 		error = test_bit(MMF_THP_DISABLE);
> > > 		break;
> > > 	case PUT:
> > > 		if (arg2)
> > > 			set_bit();
> > > 		else
> > > 			clear_bit();
> > > 		break;
> > > 	#endif
> > >
> > > into sys_prctl() ?	
> >
> > That's probably a better solution.  I wasn't sure whether or not it was
> > better to have two functions to handle this, or to have one function
> > handle both.  If you think it's better to just handle both with one,
> > that's easy enough to change.
> 
> Personally I think sys_prctl() can handle this itself, without a helper.
> But of course I won't argue, this is up to you.
> 
> My only point is, the kernel is already huge ;) Imho it makes sense to
> try to lessen the code size, when the logic is simple.

I agree with you here as well.  There was a mixed bag of PRCTLs using
helpers vs. ones that put the code right into sys_prctl.  I just
arbitrarily chose to use a helper here.  I'll switch that over for v2.

- Alex
--
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/