On 02/27/2014 11:53 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:

+#define FAULT_AROUND_ORDER 4
+#define FAULT_AROUND_PAGES (1UL << FAULT_AROUND_ORDER)
+#define FAULT_AROUND_MASK ~((1UL << (PAGE_SHIFT + FAULT_AROUND_ORDER)) - 1)

Looking at the performance data made me think of this: do we really want
this to be static?  It seems like the kind of thing that will cause a
regression _somewhere_.

Also, the folks with larger base bage sizes probably don't want a
FAULT_AROUND_ORDER=4.  That's 1MB of fault-around for ppc64, for example.

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>