Re: [PATCH 4/2] numa, mm: Rename the PROT_NONE fault handling functions

[Rik van Riel]

On 10/21/2012 08:50 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > > I don't much care either way, but I was thinking walken
> > > > might want to use something similar to do WSS estimation,
> > > > in which case the NUMA name is just as wrong.
> > >
> > > That's a good point. I had not considered other uses of the
> > > same code.
> >
> > Renaming the functions for more clarity still makes sense IMO:
> > we could give it a _wss or _working_set prefix/postfix?
>
> So, to not drop your patch on the floor I've modified it as per
> the patch below.
>
> The _wss() names signal that these handlers are used for a
> specific purpose, they are not related to the regular PROT_NONE
> handling code.

Michel indicated that he does not use PROT_NONE for his
working set estimation code, but instead checks the
accessed bits in the page tables.

Since NUMA migration is the only user of PROT_NONE ptes
in normal vmas, maybe _numa is the right suffix after all?

--
All rights reversed
--
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/