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
Hugh Dickins wrote:
>> 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.
>

There are some later extensions to reuse some of the bits for things
like tlb reload policy (I think; I'd have to check to be sure), so
they're fairly non-pte-like.

>> 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!
>

Yes, that's the gist of it. We could simplify things by having only one
pte format and only have to parameterise with 3/4 level pagetables.
We'd lose support for non-PAE cpus, including the first Pentium M (which
is probably still in fairly wide use, unfortunately).

J


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-02-05 22:09    [W:0.056 / U:0.092 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site