lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Oct]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: please revert bogus patch to vmscan.c
On Tue, Oct 30, 2001 at 05:13:53PM +0100, Giuliano Pochini wrote:
>
> >> But of course going from page flush to the mm flush is fine from my part
> >> too. As Linus noted a few days ago during swapout we're going to block
> >> and reschedule all the time, so the range flush is going to be a noop in
> >
> > Only on architectures where the TLB (or equivalent) is
> > small and only capable of holding entries for one address
> > space at a time.
> >
> > It's simply not true on eg PPC.
>
> #ifdef ?

yes, but not for ppc, for alpha and all other archs without accessed bit
provided in hardware (and cached in the tlb). the flush_mm proposed by
Ben looks fine for x86 too, it's a waste only for archs without accessed
bit.

I think an #ifndef HAVE_NO_ACCESS_BIT_IN_TLB or something like that,
then define that in asm-alpha/ and the other archs without accessed bit.

OTOH, it probably doesn't make much difference so maybe it doesn't worth
the effort.

Andrea
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:12    [W:0.128 / U:0.068 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site