From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933829Ab3LIP55 (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Dec 2013 10:57:57 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:57838 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932555Ab3LIP5z (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Dec 2013 10:57:55 -0500 Message-ID: <52A5E87B.9080209@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2013 10:57:47 -0500 From: Rik van Riel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130625 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mel Gorman CC: Andrew Morton , Alex Thorlton , Linux-MM , LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/18] mm: numa: Clear numa hinting information on mprotect References: <1386572952-1191-1-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de> <1386572952-1191-10-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <1386572952-1191-10-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 12/09/2013 02:09 AM, Mel Gorman wrote: > On a protection change it is no longer clear if the page should be still > accessible. This patch clears the NUMA hinting fault bits on a protection > change. I had to think about this one, because my first thought was "wait, aren't NUMA ptes inaccessible already?". Then I thought about doing things like adding read or write permission in the mprotect, eg. changing from PROT_NONE to PROT_READ ... and it became unclear what to do with the NUMA bit in that case... This patch clears up some confusing situations :) > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org > Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman Reviewed-by: Rik van Riel -- All rights reversed