All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* Linux: PG_pinned vs. PG_foreign
@ 2007-01-15  9:38 Jan Beulich
  2007-01-15 10:10 ` Keir Fraser
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Jan Beulich @ 2007-01-15  9:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: xen-devel

Is it intentional that these two both use PG_arch_1? It seems at least risky
to me... And if intended, it would certainly deserve a comment. (I was about
to utilize PG_pinned for indicating pinned highmem-allocated PTEs when I
realized this collision.)

Thanks, Jan

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

* Re: Linux: PG_pinned vs. PG_foreign
  2007-01-15  9:38 Linux: PG_pinned vs. PG_foreign Jan Beulich
@ 2007-01-15 10:10 ` Keir Fraser
  2007-01-15 11:36   ` Jan Beulich
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Keir Fraser @ 2007-01-15 10:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jan Beulich, xen-devel

On 15/1/07 09:38, "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@novell.com> wrote:

> Is it intentional that these two both use PG_arch_1? It seems at least risky
> to me... And if intended, it would certainly deserve a comment. (I was about
> to utilize PG_pinned for indicating pinned highmem-allocated PTEs when I
> realized this collision.)

There's no reason to have them use the same bit if there's a PG_arch_2
available. It was probbaly laziness on my part when I realised that (so far)
ForeignPage and Pinned are mutually exclusive.

 -- Keir

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

* Re: Linux: PG_pinned vs. PG_foreign
  2007-01-15 10:10 ` Keir Fraser
@ 2007-01-15 11:36   ` Jan Beulich
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Jan Beulich @ 2007-01-15 11:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: xen-devel, Keir Fraser

>>> Keir Fraser <keir@xensource.com> 15.01.07 11:10 >>>
>On 15/1/07 09:38, "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@novell.com> wrote:
>
>> Is it intentional that these two both use PG_arch_1? It seems at least risky
>> to me... And if intended, it would certainly deserve a comment. (I was about
>> to utilize PG_pinned for indicating pinned highmem-allocated PTEs when I
>> realized this collision.)
>
>There's no reason to have them use the same bit if there's a PG_arch_2
>available. It was probbaly laziness on my part when I realised that (so far)
>ForeignPage and Pinned are mutually exclusive.

There isn't, but there are a few bits left, so that shouldn't be a problem.
PG_foreign really should be a standalone one, not using PR_arch_1, as
arches may have or get a meaning assigned for this (ia64 specifically has),
so even if it isn't a problem today it is very much like a latent bug.

I'll try to send a respective patch soon, but since I want to use this in our
code, too, I first have to resolve a collision with s390 patches from IBM,
which consume all the remaining bit positions.

Jan

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2007-01-15 11:36 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2007-01-15  9:38 Linux: PG_pinned vs. PG_foreign Jan Beulich
2007-01-15 10:10 ` Keir Fraser
2007-01-15 11:36   ` Jan Beulich

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.