From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 10:03:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] mm: tracking shared dirty pages In-Reply-To: <1148576422.10561.80.camel@lappy> Message-ID: References: <20060525135534.20941.91650.sendpatchset@lappy> <20060525135555.20941.36612.sendpatchset@lappy> <1148576422.10561.80.camel@lappy> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Christoph Lameter , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Hugh Dickins , Andrew Morton , David Howells , Martin Bligh , Nick Piggin , Linus Torvalds List-ID: On Thu, 25 May 2006, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, 2006-05-25 at 09:21 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > On Thu, 25 May 2006, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > @@ -1446,12 +1447,13 @@ static int do_wp_page(struct mm_struct * > > > > > > - if (unlikely(vma->vm_flags & VM_SHARED)) { > > > + if (vma->vm_flags & VM_SHARED) { > > > > You add this unlikely later again it seems. Why remove in the first place? > > I'm not sure I follow you, are you suggesting that we'll find the > condition to be unlikely still, even with most of the shared mappings > trapping this branch? No, I just saw the opposite in a later patch. It was the -1 patch that does + if (unlikely(vma->vm_flags & VM_SHARED)) { but thats a different context? \ -- 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