From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1757518AbaDHRao (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 8 Apr 2014 13:30:44 -0400
Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:45145 "EHLO
	merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1756856AbaDHRam (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 8 Apr 2014 13:30:42 -0400
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 19:30:31 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Linux-X86 <x86@kernel.org>,
        Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Steven Noonan <steven@uplinklabs.net>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
        David Vrabel <david.vrabel@citrix.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] Use an alternative to _PAGE_PROTNONE for
 _PAGE_NUMA v2
Message-ID: <20140408173031.GS10526@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <1396962570-18762-1-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de>
 <53440A5D.6050301@zytor.com>
 <CA+55aFwc6Jdf+As9RJ3wJWuOGEGmiaYWNa-jp2aCb9=ZiiqV+A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20140408164652.GL7292@suse.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20140408164652.GL7292@suse.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 05:46:52PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> Someone will ask why automatic NUMA balancing hints do not use "real"
> PROT_NONE but as it would need VMA information to do that on all
> architectures it would mean that VMA-fixups would be required when marking
> PTEs for NUMA hinting faults so would be expensive.

Like this:

  https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/11/13/431

That used the generic PROT_NONE infrastructure and compared, on fault,
the page protection bits against the vma->vm_page_prot bits?

So the objection to that approach was the vma-> dereference in
pte_numa() ?