From: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>
To: Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Alex Thorlton <athorlton@sgi.com>,
Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@de.ibm.com>,
linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm,thp: refactor generic deposit/withdraw routines for wider usage
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 11:22:23 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160211112223.0acc8237@mschwide> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1455182907-15445-2-git-send-email-vgupta@synopsys.com>
On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:58:26 +0530
Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com> wrote:
> Generic pgtable_trans_huge_deposit()/pgtable_trans_huge_withdraw()
> assume pgtable_t to be struct page * which is not true for all arches.
> Thus arc, s390, sparch end up with their own copies despite no special
> hardware requirements (unlike powerpc).
s390 does have a special hardware requirement. pgtable_t is an address
for a 2K block of memory. It is *not* equivalent to a struct page *
which refers to a 4K block of memory. That has been the whole point
to introduce pgtable_t.
> It seems massaging the code a bit can make it reusbale.
Imho the new code for asm-generic looks fine, as long as the override
with __HAVE_ARCH_PGTABLE_DEPOSIT/__HAVE_ARCH_PGTABLE_WITHDRAW continues
to work I do not mind.
--
blue skies,
Martin.
"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.
--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>
To: Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Alex Thorlton <athorlton@sgi.com>,
Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@de.ibm.com>,
linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm,thp: refactor generic deposit/withdraw routines for wider usage
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 11:22:23 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160211112223.0acc8237@mschwide> (raw)
Message-ID: <20160211102223.goQkduyjzSsT3zLqvW0kx-BnHM_aMT3TNxkUhBMm8l0@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1455182907-15445-2-git-send-email-vgupta@synopsys.com>
On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:58:26 +0530
Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com> wrote:
> Generic pgtable_trans_huge_deposit()/pgtable_trans_huge_withdraw()
> assume pgtable_t to be struct page * which is not true for all arches.
> Thus arc, s390, sparch end up with their own copies despite no special
> hardware requirements (unlike powerpc).
s390 does have a special hardware requirement. pgtable_t is an address
for a 2K block of memory. It is *not* equivalent to a struct page *
which refers to a 4K block of memory. That has been the whole point
to introduce pgtable_t.
> It seems massaging the code a bit can make it reusbale.
Imho the new code for asm-generic looks fine, as long as the override
with __HAVE_ARCH_PGTABLE_DEPOSIT/__HAVE_ARCH_PGTABLE_WITHDRAW continues
to work I do not mind.
--
blue skies,
Martin.
"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: schwidefsky@de.ibm.com (Martin Schwidefsky)
To: linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] mm,thp: refactor generic deposit/withdraw routines for wider usage
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 11:22:23 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160211112223.0acc8237@mschwide> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1455182907-15445-2-git-send-email-vgupta@synopsys.com>
On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:58:26 +0530
Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com> wrote:
> Generic pgtable_trans_huge_deposit()/pgtable_trans_huge_withdraw()
> assume pgtable_t to be struct page * which is not true for all arches.
> Thus arc, s390, sparch end up with their own copies despite no special
> hardware requirements (unlike powerpc).
s390 does have a special hardware requirement. pgtable_t is an address
for a 2K block of memory. It is *not* equivalent to a struct page *
which refers to a 4K block of memory. That has been the whole point
to introduce pgtable_t.
> It seems massaging the code a bit can make it reusbale.
Imho the new code for asm-generic looks fine, as long as the override
with __HAVE_ARCH_PGTABLE_DEPOSIT/__HAVE_ARCH_PGTABLE_WITHDRAW continues
to work I do not mind.
--
blue skies,
Martin.
"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>
To: Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Alex Thorlton <athorlton@sgi.com>,
Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@de.ibm.com>,
<linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
<linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm,thp: refactor generic deposit/withdraw routines for wider usage
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 11:22:23 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160211112223.0acc8237@mschwide> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1455182907-15445-2-git-send-email-vgupta@synopsys.com>
On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:58:26 +0530
Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com> wrote:
> Generic pgtable_trans_huge_deposit()/pgtable_trans_huge_withdraw()
> assume pgtable_t to be struct page * which is not true for all arches.
> Thus arc, s390, sparch end up with their own copies despite no special
> hardware requirements (unlike powerpc).
s390 does have a special hardware requirement. pgtable_t is an address
for a 2K block of memory. It is *not* equivalent to a struct page *
which refers to a 4K block of memory. That has been the whole point
to introduce pgtable_t.
> It seems massaging the code a bit can make it reusbale.
Imho the new code for asm-generic looks fine, as long as the override
with __HAVE_ARCH_PGTABLE_DEPOSIT/__HAVE_ARCH_PGTABLE_WITHDRAW continues
to work I do not mind.
--
blue skies,
Martin.
"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-02-11 10:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-02-11 9:28 [PATCH 0/2] Enable s390/arc/sparc to use generic thp deposit/withdraw Vineet Gupta
2016-02-11 9:28 ` Vineet Gupta
2016-02-11 9:28 ` [PATCH 1/2] mm,thp: refactor generic deposit/withdraw routines for wider usage Vineet Gupta
2016-02-11 9:28 ` [PATCH 1/2] mm, thp: " Vineet Gupta
2016-02-11 10:22 ` Martin Schwidefsky [this message]
2016-02-11 10:22 ` [PATCH 1/2] mm,thp: " Martin Schwidefsky
2016-02-11 10:22 ` Martin Schwidefsky
2016-02-11 10:22 ` Martin Schwidefsky
2016-02-11 10:53 ` Vineet Gupta
2016-02-11 10:53 ` Vineet Gupta
2016-02-11 11:20 ` Martin Schwidefsky
2016-02-11 11:20 ` Martin Schwidefsky
2016-02-11 11:20 ` Martin Schwidefsky
2016-02-11 11:20 ` Martin Schwidefsky
2016-02-11 12:29 ` Vineet Gupta
2016-02-11 12:29 ` Vineet Gupta
2016-02-11 9:28 ` [PATCH 2/2] ARC: mm: THP: use generic THP deposit/withdraw Vineet Gupta
2016-02-11 9:28 ` Vineet Gupta
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20160211112223.0acc8237@mschwide \
--to=schwidefsky@de.ibm.com \
--cc=Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=athorlton@sgi.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=gerald.schaefer@de.ibm.com \
--cc=kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.