Re: [RFC v2][PATCH]page_fault retry with NOPAGE_RETRY

[KOSAKI Motohiro]

> 
> * Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > I think that a good way to present this is as a preparatory patch: 
> > "convert the fourth argument to handle_mm_fault() from a boolean to a 
> > flags word".  That would be a simple do-nothing patch which affects all 
> > architectures and which ideally would break the build at any unconverted 
> > code sites.  (Change the argument order?)
> 
> why not do what i suggested: refactor do_page_fault() into a platform 
> specific / kernel-internal faults and into a generic-user-pte function. 
> That alone would increase readability i suspect.
> 
> Then the 'retry' is multiple calls from handle_pte_fault().
> 
> Or something like that.
> 
> It looks wrong to me to pass another flag through this hot codepath, just 
> to express a property that the _highlevel_ code is interested in.

I like this idea :)



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/