On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 9:11 AM Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 08:46:58AM -0800, Ricardo Koller wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 05:03:23PM -0800, Ben Gardon wrote: > > [...] > > > > Would it be accurate to say: > > > /* No huge pages can exist at the root level, so there's nothing to > > > split here. */ > > > > > > I think of "last level" as the lowest/leaf/4k level but > > > KVM_PGTABLE_MAX_LEVELS - 1 is 3? > > > > Right, this is the 4k level. > > > > > Does ARM do the level numbering in > > > reverse order to x86? > > > > Yes, it does. Interesting, x86 does > > > > iter->level--; > > > > while arm does: > > > > ret = __kvm_pgtable_walk(data, mm_ops, childp, level + 1); > > > > I don't think this numbering scheme is encoded anywhere in the PTEs, so > > either architecture could use the other. > > The numbering we use in the page table walkers is deliberate, as it > directly matches the Arm ARM. While we can certainly use either scheme > I'd prefer we keep aligned with the architecture. hehe, I was actually subtly suggesting our x86 friends to change their side. > > -- > Thanks, > Oliver
