From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-vc0-f181.google.com (mail-vc0-f181.google.com [209.85.220.181]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 299466B0036 for ; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 23:48:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-vc0-f181.google.com with SMTP id id10so5627127vcb.40 for ; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 20:48:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vc0-x22a.google.com (mail-vc0-x22a.google.com [2607:f8b0:400c:c03::22a]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id tm8si2204688vdc.44.2014.04.25.20.48.14 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 25 Apr 2014 20:48:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vc0-f170.google.com with SMTP id hr9so5885686vcb.29 for ; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 20:48:14 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <53558507.9050703@zytor.com> <20140423184145.GH17824@quack.suse.cz> <20140424065133.GX26782@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net> <1398389846.8437.6.camel@pasglop> <1398393700.8437.22.camel@pasglop> <5359CD7C.5020604@zytor.com> <535A9356.8060608@intel.com> <535ADAFD.9040308@intel.com> Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 20:48:13 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Dirty/Access bits vs. page content From: Linus Torvalds Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Hugh Dickins Cc: Dave Hansen , "H. Peter Anvin" , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Peter Zijlstra , Jan Kara , "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" , linux-mm , Russell King - ARM Linux , Tony Luck On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 8:11 PM, Hugh Dickins wrote: > > So here is my alternative to Linus's "split 'tlb_flush_mmu()'" patch. > I don't really have a preference between the two approaches, and it > looks like Linus is now happy with his, so I don't expect this one to > go anywhere; unless someone else can see a significant advantage to it. Hmm. I like that it's smaller and doesn't need any arch support. I really dislike that 'details.mutex_is_held' flag, though. I dislike pretty much *all* of details, but that one just bugs me extra much, because it's basically static call chain information, and it really smells like it should be possible to just do this all in the (few) callers instead of having a flag about the one caller that did it. In general, I hate conditional locking. And here the conditionals are getting pretty odd and complex. Linus -- 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