Re: [PATCH 04/31] x86/mm: Introduce pte_accessible()

2012-11-01 Thread Mel Gorman
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 02:16:21PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > From: Rik van Riel > > We need pte_present to return true for _PAGE_PROTNONE pages, to indicate that > the pte is associated with a page. > > However, for TLB flushing purposes, we would like to know whether the pte > points to

Re: [PATCH 04/31] x86/mm: Introduce pte_accessible()

2012-11-01 Thread Mel Gorman
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 02:16:21PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: From: Rik van Riel r...@redhat.com We need pte_present to return true for _PAGE_PROTNONE pages, to indicate that the pte is associated with a page. However, for TLB flushing purposes, we would like to know whether the pte

Re: [PATCH 04/31] x86/mm: Introduce pte_accessible()

2012-10-25 Thread Linus Torvalds
NAK NAK NAK. On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 5:16 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > +#define __HAVE_ARCH_PTE_ACCESSIBLE > +static inline int pte_accessible(pte_t a) Stop doing this f*cking crazy ad-hoc "I have some other name available" #defines. Use the same name, for chissake! Don't make up new random

[PATCH 04/31] x86/mm: Introduce pte_accessible()

2012-10-25 Thread Peter Zijlstra
From: Rik van Riel We need pte_present to return true for _PAGE_PROTNONE pages, to indicate that the pte is associated with a page. However, for TLB flushing purposes, we would like to know whether the pte points to an actually accessible page. This allows us to skip remote TLB flushes for

[PATCH 04/31] x86/mm: Introduce pte_accessible()

2012-10-25 Thread Peter Zijlstra
From: Rik van Riel r...@redhat.com We need pte_present to return true for _PAGE_PROTNONE pages, to indicate that the pte is associated with a page. However, for TLB flushing purposes, we would like to know whether the pte points to an actually accessible page. This allows us to skip remote TLB

Re: [PATCH 04/31] x86/mm: Introduce pte_accessible()

2012-10-25 Thread Linus Torvalds
NAK NAK NAK. On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 5:16 AM, Peter Zijlstra a.p.zijls...@chello.nl wrote: +#define __HAVE_ARCH_PTE_ACCESSIBLE +static inline int pte_accessible(pte_t a) Stop doing this f*cking crazy ad-hoc I have some other name available #defines. Use the same name, for chissake! Don't