On 9/23/19 2:01 PM, Leonardo Bras wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-09-23 at 13:27 -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
>> I'd also like a second opinion from the "core" -mm maintainers, but it seems
>> like
>> there is now too much code around the gup_pgd_range() call. Especially since
>> there
>> are two places
On Mon, 2019-09-23 at 13:27 -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
> I'd also like a second opinion from the "core" -mm maintainers, but it seems
> like
> there is now too much code around the gup_pgd_range() call. Especially since
> there
> are two places where it's called--did you forget the other one in
On 9/20/19 12:50 PM, Leonardo Bras wrote:
> As decribed, gup_pgd_range is a lockless pagetable walk. So, in order to
> monitor against THP split/collapse with the couting method, it's necessary
> to bound it with {start,end}_lockless_pgtbl_walk.
>
> There are dummy functions, so it is not going
As decribed, gup_pgd_range is a lockless pagetable walk. So, in order to
monitor against THP split/collapse with the couting method, it's necessary
to bound it with {start,end}_lockless_pgtbl_walk.
There are dummy functions, so it is not going to add any overhead on archs
that don't use this
