From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261819AbVBXFdX (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Feb 2005 00:33:23 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261821AbVBXFdX (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Feb 2005 00:33:23 -0500 Received: from bay-bridge.veritas.com ([143.127.3.10]:20142 "EHLO MTVMIME03.enterprise.veritas.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261819AbVBXFdD (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Feb 2005 00:33:03 -0500 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 05:12:08 +0000 (GMT) From: Hugh Dickins X-X-Sender: hugh@goblin.wat.veritas.com To: Nick Piggin cc: Andi Kleen , "David S. Miller" , benh@kernel.crashing.org, torvalds@osdl.org, akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] page table iterators In-Reply-To: <421D1737.1050501@yahoo.com.au> Message-ID: 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> <421D1737.1050501@yahoo.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 24 Feb 2005, Nick Piggin wrote: > Hugh Dickins wrote: > > > I'm inlining pmd and pud levels, but not pte and pgd levels. > > OK - that's probably sufficient for debugging. There is only so > much that can go wrong in the middle levels... Yes, that was my thinking. > how does it look > performance wise? (I can give it a test when it gets split out) Yesterday shattered in various directions, I hope to try today. > > One point worth making, I do believe throughout that whatever the > > address layout, "end" cannot be 0 - BUG_ON(addr >= end) assures. Of course, that does allow some simplifications in your for_each macros; but it still looked like my p??_limits were better for shortest codepath, and close to yours for codesize. > OK after sleeping on it, I'm warming to your way. > > I don't think it makes something like David's modifications any > easier, but mine didn't go a long way to that end either. And > being a more incremental approach gives us more room to move in > future (for example, maybe toward something that really *will* > accommodate the bitmap walking code nicely). I'll take a quick look at David's today. Just so long as we don't make them harder. > So I'd be pretty happy for you to queue this up with Andrew for > 2.6.12. Anyone else? Oh, okay, thanks. You weren't very happy with p??_limit(addr, end), and good naming is important to me. I didn't care for your tentative p??_span or p??_span_end. Would p??_end be better? p??_enda would be fun for one of them... Hugh