From: William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>
To: David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc64-dev@ozlabs.org,
Adam Litke <agl@us.ibm.com>, Andy Whitworth <apw@shadowen.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Consolidate lots of hugepage code
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 20:48:17 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20041029034817.GY12934@holomorphy.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20041029033708.GF12247@zax>
On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 01:37:08PM +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> wA lot of the code in arch/*/mm/hugetlbpage.c is quite similar. This
> patch attempts to consolidate a lot of the code across the arch's,
> putting the combined version in mm/hugetlb.c. There are a couple of
> uglyish hacks in order to cover all the hugepage archs, but the result
> is a very large reduction in the total amount of code. It also means
> things like hugepage lazy allocation could be implemented in one
> place, instead of six.
> As yet this is entirely untested, except on ppc64. Comments?
> Objections? Testing acks?
> Notes:
> - this patch changes the meaning of set_huge_pte() to be more
> analagous to set_pte()
> - does SH4 need special huge_ptep_get_and_clear()??
Further consolidation is premature given that outstanding hugetlb bugs
have the implication that architectures' needs are not being served by
the current arch/core split. I have at least two relatively major hugetlb
bugs outstanding, the lack of a flush_dcache_page() analogue first, and
another (soon to be a reported to affected distros) less well-understood.
Unless they're directly toward the end of restoring hugetlb to a sound
state, they're counterproductive to merge before patches doing so.
-- wli
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-10-29 3:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-10-29 3:37 David Gibson
2004-10-29 3:48 ` William Lee Irwin III [this message]
2004-11-07 17:20 ` Anton Blanchard
2004-11-07 19:20 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-11-07 19:30 ` Anton Blanchard
2004-11-07 21:09 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-11-07 21:22 ` Anton Blanchard
2004-11-07 22:49 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-11-20 15:38 ` Anton Blanchard
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20041029034817.GY12934@holomorphy.com \
--to=wli@holomorphy.com \
--cc=agl@us.ibm.com \
--cc=apw@shadowen.org \
--cc=david@gibson.dropbear.id.au \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc64-dev@ozlabs.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome