lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jan]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] [9/9] GBPAGES: Do kernel direct mapping at boot using GB pages
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008, Andi Kleen wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 05:17:41PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Tue, 29 Jan 2008, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > >
> > > +static unsigned long direct_entry(unsigned long paddr)
> >
> > Please use a more sensible function name. This one has no association
> > with the functionality at all.
>
> Can you suggest one? I honestly cannot think of a better one.
> Its's a "entry" in the "direct" mapping.

Doh, yes :) It just did not trigger.

> > > + if (direct_gbpages >= 0 && cpu_has_gbpages) {
> > > + printk(KERN_INFO "Using GB pages for direct mapping\n");
> > > + direct_gbpages = 1;
> > > + } else
> > > + direct_gbpages = 0;
> > > +}
> >
> > Please use simple boolean logic. gbpages are either enabled or disabled.
>
> It's a fairly standard widely used idiom for command line options because
> it allows default and forcing. e.g. there can be cases when the kernel
> disables it, but then it makes sense for the command line option
> to override it. There is already one case in the kernel that
> disables it.

Right, but please use some constants. I was tripping over the

if (direct_gbpages > 0)

somewhere else in the code and it would have been simpler to see
something like:

if (direct_gbpages == GBPAGES_ENABLED)

> > > * prefetches from the CPU leading to inconsistent cache lines.
> > > @@ -467,6 +511,8 @@ __clear_kernel_mapping(unsigned long add
> > > continue;
> > >
> > > pud = pud_offset(pgd, address);
> > > + if (pud_large(*pud))
> > > + split_gb_page(pud, __pa(address));
> > > if (pud_none(*pud))
> > > continue;
> >
> > As I said before, this needs to use CPA and not implement another variant.
>
> Ok, I can switch GART over to CPA, but that will make the patch
> much more intrusive and a little riskier. Is that ok for you
> and will it be still considered .25 candidate?

We have the code in place already and we need to shake out any
remaining problems anyway. So using the CPA code would be preferred as
it adds another user. Can you give it a try please ?

Thanks,
tglx


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-01-31 18:13    [W:0.048 / U:0.444 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site