Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Thu, 13 Nov 2008 21:22:55 -0800 | | From | Jeremy Fitzhardinge <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: implement remap_pfn_range with apply_to_page_range | |
Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Friday 14 November 2008 13:56, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>
>> Nick Piggin wrote:
>>
>>> This isn't performance critical to anyone?
>>>
>> The only difference should be between having the specialized code and an
>> indirect function call, no?
>>
>
> Indirect function call per pte. It's going to be slower surely.
>
Yes, though changing the calling convention to handle (up to) a whole
page worth of ptes in one call would be fairly simple I think.
> It is accepted practice to (carefully) duplicate the page table walking
> functions in memory management code. I don't think that's a problem,
> there is already so many instances of them (just be sure to stick to
> exactly the same form and variable names, and any update or bugfix to
> any of them is trivially applicable to all).
>
I think that's pretty awful practice, frankly, and I'd much prefer there
to be a single iterator function which everyone uses. The open-coded
iterators everywhere just makes it completely impractical to even think
about other kinds of pagetable structures. (Of course we have at least
two "general purpose" pagetable walkers now...)
J
|  |