From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] mm: Pass virtual address to [__]p{te,ud,md}_free_tlb() Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 20:00:41 +1000 Message-ID: <1248084041.30899.7.camel@pasglop> References: <20090715074952.A36C7DDDB2@ozlabs.org> <20090715135620.GD7298@wotan.suse.de> <1247709255.27937.5.camel@pasglop> <20090720081054.GH7298@wotan.suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20090720081054.GH7298@wotan.suse.de> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Nick Piggin Cc: Linux Memory Management , Linux-Arch , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Hugh Dickins List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2009-07-20 at 10:10 +0200, Nick Piggin wrote: > > Maybe I don't understand your description correctly. The TLB contains > PMDs, but you say the HW still logically performs another translation > step using entries in the PMD pages? If I understand that correctly, > then generic mm does not actually care and would logically fit better > if those entries were "linux ptes". They are :-) > The pte invalidation routines > give the virtual address, which you could use to invalidate the TLB. For PTEs, yes, but not for those PMD entries. IE. I need the virtual address when destroying PMDs so that I can invalidate those "indirect" pages. PTEs are already taken care of by existing mechanisms. Cheers, Ben. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org ([63.228.1.57]:42388 "EHLO gate.crashing.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753152AbZGTKLN (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Jul 2009 06:11:13 -0400 Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] mm: Pass virtual address to [__]p{te,ud,md}_free_tlb() From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt In-Reply-To: <20090720081054.GH7298@wotan.suse.de> References: <20090715074952.A36C7DDDB2@ozlabs.org> <20090715135620.GD7298@wotan.suse.de> <1247709255.27937.5.camel@pasglop> <20090720081054.GH7298@wotan.suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 20:00:41 +1000 Message-ID: <1248084041.30899.7.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Nick Piggin Cc: Linux Memory Management , Linux-Arch , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Hugh Dickins Message-ID: <20090720100041.6YBoioQduIFtIkyKLkLV7WJTVHYd93FcKJMqJpdC52A@z> On Mon, 2009-07-20 at 10:10 +0200, Nick Piggin wrote: > > Maybe I don't understand your description correctly. The TLB contains > PMDs, but you say the HW still logically performs another translation > step using entries in the PMD pages? If I understand that correctly, > then generic mm does not actually care and would logically fit better > if those entries were "linux ptes". They are :-) > The pte invalidation routines > give the virtual address, which you could use to invalidate the TLB. For PTEs, yes, but not for those PMD entries. IE. I need the virtual address when destroying PMDs so that I can invalidate those "indirect" pages. PTEs are already taken care of by existing mechanisms. Cheers, Ben. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ozlabs.org (ozlabs.org [203.10.76.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mx.ozlabs.org", Issuer "CA Cert Signing Authority" (verified OK)) by bilbo.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98D9BB70C4 for ; Mon, 20 Jul 2009 20:11:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E39CCDDD04 for ; Mon, 20 Jul 2009 20:11:07 +1000 (EST) Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] mm: Pass virtual address to [__]p{te,ud,md}_free_tlb() From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Nick Piggin In-Reply-To: <20090720081054.GH7298@wotan.suse.de> References: <20090715074952.A36C7DDDB2@ozlabs.org> <20090715135620.GD7298@wotan.suse.de> <1247709255.27937.5.camel@pasglop> <20090720081054.GH7298@wotan.suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 20:00:41 +1000 Message-Id: <1248084041.30899.7.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: Linux-Arch , Linux Memory Management , Hugh Dickins , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, 2009-07-20 at 10:10 +0200, Nick Piggin wrote: > > Maybe I don't understand your description correctly. The TLB contains > PMDs, but you say the HW still logically performs another translation > step using entries in the PMD pages? If I understand that correctly, > then generic mm does not actually care and would logically fit better > if those entries were "linux ptes". They are :-) > The pte invalidation routines > give the virtual address, which you could use to invalidate the TLB. For PTEs, yes, but not for those PMD entries. IE. I need the virtual address when destroying PMDs so that I can invalidate those "indirect" pages. PTEs are already taken care of by existing mechanisms. Cheers, Ben.