On Tue, 2005-11-08 at 17:32 -0500, Dave Anderson wrote: > Badari Pulavarty wrote: > > > On Tue, 2005-11-08 at 14:42 -0500, Dave Anderson wrote: > > > Badari Pulavarty wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yep. You are right, those pages are not mapped. Initially > > > > I thought that was the case, but I wasn't really sure if it > > > > can happen with segments from shared libraries. (since > > > > the routine which is telling its not mapped involves > > > > going through my code). > > > > > > > > Anyway, I verified this on x86-64 machine also - I do > > > > get "read" error and those pages are not mapped. > > > > > > > > I guess, my changes are good :) > > > > > > > > Haren, can you review them ? > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Badari > > > > > > > > > > The patch looks just fine to me -- the only minor things to > > > add is a dump of the VM_ORIG/VM_4_LEVEL bits in > > > the ppc64_dump_machdep_table() debug function, and > > > although the "pud_clear_bad" is in all probability quite > > > suitable as a qualifier, it's probably also worth adding > > > an optional "--machdep vm=xxx" command line argument > > > like I put in place for the x86_64 equivalent. Just to cover > > > our collective arse... > > > > > > Anyway, upon Haren's blessing, it's good to go. > > > > > > Again -- really nice work! > > > > Okay, made recommended changes. > > > > I still need to figure out a decent symbol to identify > > 4-level pagetable layout. I am looking through "nm -Bn". > > I still can't find a decent one. (has to be some symbol > > added for 2.6.14). > > > > Any ideas ? > > > > If you can google out the wholesale patch that introduced the > 4-level pagetable support, you might find something added > or removed? That's what I did for the x86_64 qualifier. good idea. Thanks, Badari
