From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail172.messagelabs.com (mail172.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.3]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 898636B0044 for ; Mon, 26 Jan 2009 23:34:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from m2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.72]) by fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id n0R4YMUx016217 for (envelope-from kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com); Tue, 27 Jan 2009 13:34:23 +0900 Received: from smail (m2 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE8FE45DE57 for ; Tue, 27 Jan 2009 13:34:22 +0900 (JST) Received: from s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.92]) by m2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C1D145DE51 for ; Tue, 27 Jan 2009 13:34:22 +0900 (JST) Received: from s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83898E38002 for ; Tue, 27 Jan 2009 13:34:22 +0900 (JST) Received: from ml14.s.css.fujitsu.com (ml14.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.104]) by s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3736EE18007 for ; Tue, 27 Jan 2009 13:34:22 +0900 (JST) From: KOSAKI Motohiro Subject: Re: [RFC v2][PATCH]page_fault retry with NOPAGE_RETRY In-Reply-To: <20090126235715.GB8726@elte.hu> References: <20090126155246.2d7df309.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20090126235715.GB8726@elte.hu> Message-Id: <20090128131715.D45E.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 13:34:20 +0900 (JST) Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Ingo Molnar Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, Andrew Morton , Ying Han , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mikew@google.com, rientjes@google.com, rohitseth@google.com, hugh@veritas.com, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, hpa@zytor.com, edwintorok@gmail.com, lee.schermerhorn@hp.com, npiggin@suse.de List-ID: > > * Andrew Morton wrote: > > > I think that a good way to present this is as a preparatory patch: > > "convert the fourth argument to handle_mm_fault() from a boolean to a > > flags word". That would be a simple do-nothing patch which affects all > > architectures and which ideally would break the build at any unconverted > > code sites. (Change the argument order?) > > why not do what i suggested: refactor do_page_fault() into a platform > specific / kernel-internal faults and into a generic-user-pte function. > That alone would increase readability i suspect. > > Then the 'retry' is multiple calls from handle_pte_fault(). > > Or something like that. > > It looks wrong to me to pass another flag through this hot codepath, just > to express a property that the _highlevel_ code is interested in. I like this idea :) -- 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