Re: [RFC PATCH 01/09] robust VM per_cpu core
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 01/09] robust VM per_cpu core
- From: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 13:08:54 +0200
- Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@xxxxxxxxx>, Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxx>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Martin Mares <mj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, bjornw@xxxxxxxx, schwidefsky@xxxxxxxxxx, lethal@xxxxxxxxxxxx, Chris Zankel <chris@xxxxxxxxxx>, Marc Gauthier <marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Joe Taylor <joe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, rth@xxxxxxxxxxx, spyro@xxxxxxx, starvik@xxxxxxxx, tony.luck@xxxxxxxxx, linux-ia64@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ralf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-mips@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, grundler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, parisc-linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linuxppc-dev@xxxxxxxxxx, linux390@xxxxxxxxxx, davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, arnd@xxxxxxxx, kenneth.w.chen@xxxxxxxxx, sam@xxxxxxxxxxxx, clameter@xxxxxxx, kiran@xxxxxxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0605170640280.8408@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0605170547490.8408@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <200605171117.06060.ak@xxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0605170640280.8408@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- User-agent: KMail/1.9.1
On Wednesday 17 May 2006 12:46, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> On Wed, 17 May 2006, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> >
> > > As well as the following three functions:
> > >
> > > pud_t *pud_boot_alloc(struct mm_struct *mm, pgd_t *pgd, unsigned long addr,
> > > int cpu);
> > > pmd_t *pmd_boot_alloc(struct mm_struct *mm, pud_t *pud, unsigned long addr,
> > > int cpu);
> > > pte_t *pte_boot_alloc(struct mm_struct *mm, pmd_t *pmd, unsigned long addr,
> > > int cpu);
> >
> > I'm not sure you can just put them like this into generic code. Some
> > architectures are doing strange things with them.
>
> Hmm, like what?
Mostly managing their software TLBs I think.
> >
> > And we already have boot_ioremap on some architectures. Why is that not
> > enough?
>
> I thought about using boot_ioremap, but it seems to be an abuse. Since
> I'm not mapping io, but actual memory pages.
We already use it for memory, e.g. for mapping some BIOS tables.
> So the solution to that
> seemed more of a hack. I then would need to worry about grabbing pages
> that were node specific
alloc_bootmem_node
> and getting the physical addresses.
virt_to_phys()
[ + hacks to handle 32bit NUMA unfortunately ]
-Andi
-
: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[Index of Archives]
[Linux Kernel]
[Sparc Linux]
[DCCP]
[Linux ARM]
[Yosemite News]
[Linux SCSI]
[Linux x86_64]
[Linux for Ham Radio]