Messages in this thread | | | From | "Chen, Kenneth W" <> | Subject | RE: [PATCH/RFC] Shared page tables | Date | Fri, 20 Jan 2006 13:54:34 -0800 |
| |
Hugh Dickins wrote on Friday, January 20, 2006 1:24 PM > More comments, mostly trivial, against extracts from the patch below. > (Quite often I comment on one instance, but same applies in similar places.) > > > --- 2.6.15/./include/asm-x86_64/pgtable.h 2006-01-02 21:21:10.000000000 -0600 > > +++ 2.6.15-shpt/./include/asm-x86_64/pgtable.h 2006-01-03 10:30:01.000000000 -0600 > > @@ -324,7 +321,8 @@ static inline int pmd_large(pmd_t pte) { > > /* > > * Level 4 access. > > */ > > -#define pgd_page(pgd) ((unsigned long) __va((unsigned long)pgd_val(pgd) & PTE_MASK)) > > +#define pgd_page_kernel(pgd) ((unsigned long) __va((unsigned long)pgd_val(pgd) & PTE_MASK)) > > +#define pgd_page(pgd) (pfn_to_page(pgd_val(pgd) >> PAGE_SHIFT)) > > Hmm, so pgd_page changes its meaning: is that wise? Looks like it isn't > used much outside of include/ so perhaps you're okay, and I can see the > attraction of using "_page" for something that supplies a struct page *. > I can also see the attraction of appending "_kernel" to the other, > following pte_offset_kernel, but "_kernel" isn't really appropriate. > Musing aloud, no particular suggestion.
I was wondering about that myself too: in current code, pgd_page() and pud_page() deviate from pmd_page and pte_page in terms of symmetry. The first two return virtual address of the pgd_val or pud_val, while pmd_page and pte_page both return point of struct page of underlying entry. Is the asymmetry intentional?
Because the way shared page table uses pgd_page and pud_page, it causes every arch who wants to enable the feature to redefine pgd_page and pud_page, not exactly nice though.
- Ken
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |