Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Subject | RE: Hugetlb demanding paging for -mm tree | Date | Mon, 9 Aug 2004 11:43:32 -0700 | From | "Seth, Rohit" <> |
| |
Chen, Kenneth W <mailto:kenneth.w.chen@intel.com> wrote on Monday, August 09, 2004 11:19 AM:
> William Lee Irwin III wrote on Friday, August 06, 2004 2:08 PM >> On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 01:55:38PM -0700, Chen, Kenneth W wrote: >>> diff -Nurp linux-2.6.7/mm/hugetlb.c linux-2.6.7.hugetlb/mm/hugetlb.c >>> --- linux-2.6.7/mm/hugetlb.c 2004-08-06 11:44:59.000000000 -0700 >>> +++ linux-2.6.7.hugetlb/mm/hugetlb.c 2004-08-06 13:15:24.000000000 >>> -0700 @@ -276,9 +276,10 @@ retry: } >>> >>> spin_lock(&mm->page_table_lock); >>> - if (pte_none(*pte)) >>> + if (pte_none(*pte)) { >>> set_huge_pte(mm, vma, page, pte, vma->vm_flags & VM_WRITE); >>> - else + update_mmu_cache(vma, addr, *pte); >>> + } else >>> put_page(page); >>> out: >>> spin_unlock(&mm->page_table_lock); >> >> update_mmu_cache() does not appear to check the size of the >> translation to be established in many architectures. e.g. on >> arch/ia64/ it does flush_icache_range(addr, addr + PAGE_SIZE) >> unconditionally, and only sets PG_arch_1 on a single struct page. >> Similar comments apply to sparc64 and ppc64; I didn't check any >> others. > > I suppose this is fixable in update_mmu_cache() where it can check the > type of pte and do appropriate sizing and other things. ia64 would > have > to check the address instead of looking at the pte.
Why do we need update_mmu_cache for hugepages? - 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/
| |