lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Feb]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: pud_bad vs pud_bad
On Thu, 5 Feb 2009, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > However... I forget how the folding works out. The pgd in the 32-bit
> > PAE case used to have just the pfn and the present bit set in that
> > little array of four entries: if pud_bad() ends up getting applied
> > to that, I guess it will blow up.
>
> Ah, that's a good point.
>
> > If so, my preferred answer would actually be to make those 4 entries
> > look more like real ptes; but you may think I'm being a bit silly.
>
> Hardware doesn't allow it. It will explode (well, trap) if you set anything
> other than P in the top level.

Oh, interesting, I'd never realized that.

> By the by, what are the chances we'll be able to deprecate non-PAE 32-bit?

I sincerely hope 0! I shed no tears at losing support for NUMAQ,
but why should we be forced to double all the 32-bit ptes? You want
us all to be using NX? Or you just want to cut your test/edit matrix -
that I can well understand!

Hugh


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-02-05 21:55    [W:0.052 / U:1.020 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site