Re: [PATCH] mm/hugetlb: reduce arch dependent code about huge_pmd_unshare

2015-04-24 Thread Steve Capper
Hi, On 23 April 2015 at 23:41, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 22:26:18 + "Luck, Tony" wrote: > >> > Memory fails me. Why do some architectures (arm, arm64, x86_64) want >> > huge_pmd_[un]share() while other architectures (ia64, tile, mips, >> > powerpc, metag, sh, s390) do not?

Re: [PATCH] mm/hugetlb: reduce arch dependent code about huge_pmd_unshare

2015-04-23 Thread Andrew Morton
On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 22:26:18 + "Luck, Tony" wrote: > > Memory fails me. Why do some architectures (arm, arm64, x86_64) want > > huge_pmd_[un]share() while other architectures (ia64, tile, mips, > > powerpc, metag, sh, s390) do not? > > Potentially laziness/ignorance-of-feature? It looks li

RE: [PATCH] mm/hugetlb: reduce arch dependent code about huge_pmd_unshare

2015-04-23 Thread Luck, Tony
> Memory fails me. Why do some architectures (arm, arm64, x86_64) want > huge_pmd_[un]share() while other architectures (ia64, tile, mips, > powerpc, metag, sh, s390) do not? Potentially laziness/ignorance-of-feature? It looks like this feature started on x86_64 and then spread to arm*. Huge p

Re: [PATCH] mm/hugetlb: reduce arch dependent code about huge_pmd_unshare

2015-04-23 Thread Andrew Morton
On Tue, 14 Apr 2015 15:35:04 +0800 Zhang Zhen wrote: > Currently we have many duplicates in definitions of huge_pmd_unshare. > In all architectures this function just returns 0 when > CONFIG_ARCH_WANT_HUGE_PMD_SHARE is N. > > This patch put the default implementation in mm/hugetlb.c and lets >

[PATCH] mm/hugetlb: reduce arch dependent code about huge_pmd_unshare

2015-04-14 Thread Zhang Zhen
Currently we have many duplicates in definitions of huge_pmd_unshare. In all architectures this function just returns 0 when CONFIG_ARCH_WANT_HUGE_PMD_SHARE is N. This patch put the default implementation in mm/hugetlb.c and lets these architecture use the common code. Signed-off-by: Zhang Zhen