Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 2 Jan 2008 22:24:38 +0100 (CET) | From | Geert Uytterhoeven <> | Subject | Re: [patch 2/3] CONFIG_HIGHPTE vs. sub-page page tables. |
| |
On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 03:30:11PM +0100, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com wrote: > > From: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com> > > Solution: The only solution I found to this dilemma is a new typedef: > > a pgtable_t. For s390 pgtable_t will be a (pte *) - to be introduced > > with a later patch. For everybody else it will be a (struct page *). > > The additional problem with the initialization of the ptl lock and the > > NR_PAGETABLE accounting is solved with a constructor pgtable_page_ctor > > and a destructor pgtable_page_dtor. The page table allocation and free > > functions need to call these two whenever a page table page is allocated > > or freed. pmd_populate will get a pgtable_t instead of a struct page > > pointer. To get the pgtable_t back from a pmd entry that has been > > installed with pmd_populate a new function pmd_pgtable is added. It > > replaces the pmd_page call in free_pte_range and apply_to_pte_range. > > Can we please just nuke CONFIG_HIGHPTE? There's only been a small > amount of 32bit machines with so much memory that they'd need it > and they can happily stay on the currently supported enterprise > distro releases instead of dragging this cruft around forever.
And all MMU-equipped FR-V machines with more than 256 MiB of RAM, according to arch/frv/Kconfig?
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
-- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds
| |