From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Chen, Kenneth W" Subject: RE: tracking dirty pages patches Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 14:17:05 -0700 Message-ID: <000001c67eae$3e29bd90$e734030a@amr.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: 'Hugh Dickins' , Christoph Lameter Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , David Howells , Rohit Seth , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Hugh Dickins wrote on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 1:34 PM > On Tue, 23 May 2006, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > > > That is true for ia64. However, the name "lazy_mmu_prot_update" suggests > > that the intended scope is to cover protection updates in general. > > And we definitely change the protections of the page. > > True, and I now see Documentation/cachetlb.txt documents it that way. > Yet nothing but ia64 has any use for it. > > > Maybe we could rename lazy_mmu_prot_update? What does icache/dcache > > aliasing have to do with page protection? > > I'd strongly agree with you that it should be renamed: for a start, > why does it say "lazy"? That's an architectural implementation detail. > > Except that, instead of agreeing it should be renamed, I say it should > be deleted entirely. It seems to represent that ia64 has an empty > update_mmu_cache, and someone decided to add a new interface instead > of giving ia64 that work to do in its update_mmu_cache. My memory recollects that it was done just like what you suggested: overloading update_mmu_cache for ia64, but it was vetoed by several mm experts. And as a result a new function was introduced. - Ken -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org