From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261164AbVBWE6Z (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Feb 2005 23:58:25 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261189AbVBWE6Z (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Feb 2005 23:58:25 -0500 Received: from dsl027-180-174.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([216.27.180.174]:17117 "EHLO cheetah.davemloft.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261164AbVBWE6U (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Feb 2005 23:58:20 -0500 Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 20:57:22 -0800 From: "David S. Miller" To: Nick Piggin Cc: hugh@veritas.com, ak@suse.de, benh@kernel.crashing.org, torvalds@osdl.org, akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] page table iterators Message-Id: <20050222205722.4e228aba.davem@davemloft.net> In-Reply-To: <1109134170.5177.9.camel@npiggin-nld.site> References: <4214A1EC.4070102@yahoo.com.au> <4214A437.8050900@yahoo.com.au> <20050217194336.GA8314@wotan.suse.de> <1108680578.5665.14.camel@gaston> <20050217230342.GA3115@wotan.suse.de> <20050217153031.011f873f.davem@davemloft.net> <20050217235719.GB31591@wotan.suse.de> <4218840D.6030203@yahoo.com.au> <421B0163.3050802@yahoo.com.au> <20050222203115.49f79f42.davem@davemloft.net> <1109134170.5177.9.camel@npiggin-nld.site> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 1.0.1 (GTK+ 1.2.10; sparc-unknown-linux-gnu) X-Face: "_;p5u5aPsO,_Vsx"^v-pEq09'CU4&Dc1$fQExov$62l60cgCc%FnIwD=.UF^a>?5'9Kn[;433QFVV9M..2eN.@4ZWPGbdi<=?[:T>y?SD(R*-3It"Vj:)"dP Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 15:49:30 +1100 Nick Piggin wrote: > > 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? Sure, no problem. They get defined to pmd_set/pgd_set calls anyways. But wouldn't that miss pgd_clear() and pmd_clear()? Someone may find it worthwhile to, on a *_clear(), to see if a set bit can now be clear because all the neighboring entries are empty as well. That might have been the reason I put it there, but I may be giving myself too much credit :-)