* Mel Gorman <mgor...@suse.de> wrote:
> That said, your approach just ends up being heavier. [...]
Well, it's more fundamental than just whether to inline or not
(which I think should be a separate optimization and I won't
object to two-instruction variants the slightest) - but you
ended up open-coding change_protection()
via:
change_prot_numa_range() et al
which is a far bigger problem...
Do you have valid technical arguments in favor of that
duplication?
If you just embrace the PROT_NONE reuse approach of numa/core
then 90% of the differences in your tree will disappear and
you'll have a code base very close to where numa/core was 3
weeks ago already, modulo a handful of renames.
It's not like PROT_NONE will go away anytime soon.
PROT_NONE is available on every architecture, and we use the
exact semantics of it in the scheduler, we just happen to drive
it from a special worklet instead of a syscall, and happen to
have a callback to the faults when they happen...
Please stay open to that approach.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
