Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] Use an alternative to _PAGE_PROTNONE for _PAGE_NUMA v2

[Cyrill Gorcunov]

On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 07:30:31PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 05:46:52PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > Someone will ask why automatic NUMA balancing hints do not use "real"
> > PROT_NONE but as it would need VMA information to do that on all
> > architectures it would mean that VMA-fixups would be required when marking
> > PTEs for NUMA hinting faults so would be expensive.
> 
> Like this:
> 
>   https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/11/13/431
> 
> That used the generic PROT_NONE infrastructure and compared, on fault,
> the page protection bits against the vma->vm_page_prot bits?
> 
> So the objection to that approach was the vma-> dereference in
> pte_numa() ?

Peter, I somehow missing, with this patch would it be possible to
get rid of ugly macros in 2 level pages like we have now? (I've
dropped off softdirty support for non x86-64 now [patches are
flying around]) but still there are a few remains which make
Linus unhappy.

static __always_inline pgoff_t pte_to_pgoff(pte_t pte)
{
	return (pgoff_t)
		(pte_bitop(pte.pte_low, PTE_FILE_SHIFT1, PTE_FILE_MASK1,  0)		    +
		 pte_bitop(pte.pte_low, PTE_FILE_SHIFT2, PTE_FILE_MASK2,  PTE_FILE_LSHIFT2) +
		 pte_bitop(pte.pte_low, PTE_FILE_SHIFT3,           -1UL,  PTE_FILE_LSHIFT3));
}
--
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/