Re: [PATCH 2/2] page table iterators

[Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>]

On Tue, 2005-02-22 at 20:31 -0800, David S. Miller wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 02:06:28 +0000 (GMT)
> Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com> wrote:
> 
> > I've not seen Dave's bitmap walking functions (for clearing?),
> > would they fit in better with my way?
> 

Hugh: I'll have more of a look through your patch when I get
some time... to be honest I'm not too worried either way, so
long as one or the other gets in.

Very trivial point, but I'm not sure that I like the name
p?d_limit... maybe p?d_span or _span_end... hmm, they're not
really pleasing either.

You _are_ repeating a bit of mindless loop accounting in every
page table walk, and it isn't completely clear to me that it is
giving you much more flexibility (than for_each_*). But my loops
_are_ a bit contorted.

> This is what Nick is referring to:
> 

[snip]

> It's easy to toy with the sparc64 optimization on other platforms,
> just add the necessary hacks to pmd_set and pgd_set, allocation
> of pmd and pgd tables

David: just an implementation detail that I had meant to bring
up earlier - would it feel like less of a hack to put these in
pmd_populate and pgd_populate?

Nick