Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755299AbaDGNH0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Apr 2014 09:07:26 -0400 Received: from mta-out.inet.fi ([195.156.147.13]:60711 "EHLO kirsi1.inet.fi" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755242AbaDGNHX (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Apr 2014 09:07:23 -0400 Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 16:07:01 +0300 From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" To: Cyrill Gorcunov Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [rfc 0/3] Cleaning up soft-dirty bit usage Message-ID: <20140407130701.GA16677@node.dhcp.inet.fi> References: <20140403184844.260532690@openvz.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140403184844.260532690@openvz.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.22.1-rc1 (2013-10-16) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 10:48:44PM +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: > Hi! I've been trying to clean up soft-dirty bit usage. I can't cleanup > "ridiculous macros in pgtable-2level.h" completely because I need to > define _PAGE_FILE,_PAGE_PROTNONE,_PAGE_NUMA bits in sequence manner > like > > #define _PAGE_BIT_FILE (_PAGE_BIT_PRESENT + 1) /* _PAGE_BIT_RW */ > #define _PAGE_BIT_NUMA (_PAGE_BIT_PRESENT + 2) /* _PAGE_BIT_USER */ > #define _PAGE_BIT_PROTNONE (_PAGE_BIT_PRESENT + 3) /* _PAGE_BIT_PWT */ > > which can't be done right now because numa code needs to save original > pte bits for example in __split_huge_page_map, if I'm not missing something > obvious. Sorry, I didn't get this. How __split_huge_page_map() does depend on pte bits order? > > Also if we ever redefine the bits above we will need to update PAT code > which uses _PAGE_GLOBAL + _PAGE_PRESENT to make pte_present return true > or false. > > Another weird thing I found is the following sequence: > > mprotect_fixup > change_protection (passes @prot_numa = 0 which finally ends up in) > ... > change_pte_range(..., prot_numa) > > if (!prot_numa) { > ... > } else { > ... this seems to be dead code branch ... > } > > is it intentional, and @prot_numa argument is supposed to be passed > with prot_numa = 1 one day, or it's leftover from old times? I see one more user of change_protection() -- change_prot_numa(), which has .prot_numa == 1. -- Kirill A. Shutemov -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/