From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ig0-f170.google.com (mail-ig0-f170.google.com [209.85.213.170]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31DF16B0031 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 13:59:42 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-ig0-f170.google.com with SMTP id m12so5245627iga.1 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 10:59:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.sgi.com. [192.48.179.30]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id mv9si28106780icc.81.2014.01.13.10.59.40 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 10:59:41 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 12:59:44 -0600 From: Alex Thorlton Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: thp: Add per-mm_struct flag to control THP Message-ID: <20140113185944.GD10649@sgi.com> References: <1389383718-46031-1-git-send-email-athorlton@sgi.com> <20140111155337.GA16003@redhat.com> <20140111193003.GA10649@sgi.com> <20140112135600.GA15051@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140112135600.GA15051@redhat.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Oleg Nesterov Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Andrew Morton , "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Rik van Riel , Naoya Horiguchi , "Eric W. Biederman" , Andy Lutomirski , Al Viro , Kees Cook , Andrea Arcangeli , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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, 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