From: bill4carson@gmail.com (bill4carson)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] Skip unnecessary pte makeup when clearing it.
Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:09:08 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4F2BB244.8060607@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120203093518.GH25594@pengutronix.de>
On 2012?02?03? 17:35, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 03:43:58PM +0800, bill4carson wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2012?02?03? 14:54, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 04:36:07PM +0800, bill4carson at gmail.com wrote:
>>>> From: Bill Carson<bill4carson@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>> If we are only about to clear a hardware pte entry, then pte makeup code is
>>>> unnecessary for cpu_v7_set_pte_ext and armv6_set_pte_ext, so just skip it.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Bill Carson<bill4carson@gmail.com>
>>> I havn't tested and I don't know if the patch brings any advantages like
>>> increased speed. But AFAICT it doesn't change the behaviour of
>>> armv6_set_pte_ext and cpu_v7_set_pte_ext.
>>>
>> Hi, Uwe
>>
>> I'm sorry I didn't state the purpose of this patch clearly.
>> As a matter of fact, it does change the behavior of set_pte_ext :)
> Depends on what you call behaviour (and it's not the 'u' you dropped
> that makes a difference :-). I meant that the side effects don't change.
> It's only that they are accomplished in a different (probably more
> effective) way.
>
Thanks for your explanation, I'm getting what you mean now :)
Yes, from outside point of view, set_pte_ext provides exact function as
before, from inside point of view, it will behave faster than before
with this little modification. I see no reason why not do so.
Or am I missing something here?
> Best regards
> Uwe
>
--
I am a slow learner
but I will keep trying to fight for my dreams!
--bill
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-02-03 10:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-01-30 8:36 [PATCH V3] Skip unnecessary pte makeup when clearing it bill4carson at gmail.com
2012-01-30 8:36 ` [PATCH] " bill4carson at gmail.com
2012-02-03 6:54 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2012-02-03 7:43 ` bill4carson
2012-02-03 7:48 ` bill4carson
2012-02-03 9:35 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2012-02-03 10:09 ` bill4carson [this message]
2012-02-03 11:27 ` Catalin Marinas
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2012-01-30 1:47 [PATCH V2] " bill4carson at gmail.com
2012-01-30 1:47 ` [PATCH] " bill4carson at gmail.com
2012-01-30 7:58 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2012-01-30 8:29 ` bill4carson
2012-01-18 9:52 bill4carson at gmail.com
2012-01-18 10:20 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2012-01-19 1:52 ` bill4carson
2012-01-18 10:33 ` Catalin Marinas
2012-01-19 1:57 ` bill4carson
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=4F2BB244.8060607@gmail.com \
--to=bill4carson@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@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.