From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" Subject: Re: [RFC v6 01/62] powerpc: Free up four 64K PTE bits in 4K backed HPTE pages Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 11:21:51 +0530 Message-ID: <87d18vr6yw.fsf@skywalker.in.ibm.com> References: <1500177424-13695-1-git-send-email-linuxram@us.ibm.com> <1500177424-13695-2-git-send-email-linuxram@us.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1500177424-13695-2-git-send-email-linuxram@us.ibm.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org Cc: benh@kernel.crashing.org, paulus@samba.org, mpe@ellerman.id.au, khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com, bsingharora@gmail.com, dave.hansen@intel.com, hbabu@us.ibm.com, linuxram@us.ibm.com, arnd@arndb.de, akpm@linux-foundation.org, corbet@lwn.net, mingo@redhat.com, mhocko@kernel.org List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org ..... > /* > @@ -116,8 +104,8 @@ int __hash_page_4K(unsigned long ea, unsigned long access, unsigned long vsid, > * On hash insert failure we use old pte value and we don't > * want slot information there if we have a insert failure. > */ > - old_pte &= ~(H_PAGE_HASHPTE | H_PAGE_F_GIX | H_PAGE_F_SECOND); > - new_pte &= ~(H_PAGE_HASHPTE | H_PAGE_F_GIX | H_PAGE_F_SECOND); > + old_pte &= ~(H_PAGE_HASHPTE); > + new_pte &= ~(H_PAGE_HASHPTE); > goto htab_insert_hpte; > } With the current path order and above hunk we will breaks the bisect I guess. With the above, when we convert a 64k hpte to 4khpte, since this is the first patch, we should clear that H_PAGE_F_GIX and H_PAGE_F_SECOND. We still use them for 64k. I guess you should move this hunk to second patch. -aneesh -- 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 mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:34747 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933105AbdGTFwI (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Jul 2017 01:52:08 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098419.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.21/8.16.0.21) with SMTP id v6K5oKDC058957 for ; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 01:52:07 -0400 Received: from e23smtp01.au.ibm.com (e23smtp01.au.ibm.com [202.81.31.143]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2btpg48gj6-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 01:52:07 -0400 Received: from localhost by e23smtp01.au.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 15:52:04 +1000 From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" Subject: Re: [RFC v6 01/62] powerpc: Free up four 64K PTE bits in 4K backed HPTE pages In-Reply-To: <1500177424-13695-2-git-send-email-linuxram@us.ibm.com> References: <1500177424-13695-1-git-send-email-linuxram@us.ibm.com> <1500177424-13695-2-git-send-email-linuxram@us.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 11:21:51 +0530 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Message-ID: <87d18vr6yw.fsf@skywalker.in.ibm.com> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Ram Pai , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org Cc: benh@kernel.crashing.org, paulus@samba.org, mpe@ellerman.id.au, khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com, bsingharora@gmail.com, dave.hansen@intel.com, hbabu@us.ibm.com, arnd@arndb.de, akpm@linux-foundation.org, corbet@lwn.net, mingo@redhat.com, mhocko@kernel.org Message-ID: <20170720055151.ZXjYgUqQDo8ETAgTXJiJgP_shZomnQNJSSKI6OayWzI@z> ..... > /* > @@ -116,8 +104,8 @@ int __hash_page_4K(unsigned long ea, unsigned long access, unsigned long vsid, > * On hash insert failure we use old pte value and we don't > * want slot information there if we have a insert failure. > */ > - old_pte &= ~(H_PAGE_HASHPTE | H_PAGE_F_GIX | H_PAGE_F_SECOND); > - new_pte &= ~(H_PAGE_HASHPTE | H_PAGE_F_GIX | H_PAGE_F_SECOND); > + old_pte &= ~(H_PAGE_HASHPTE); > + new_pte &= ~(H_PAGE_HASHPTE); > goto htab_insert_hpte; > } With the current path order and above hunk we will breaks the bisect I guess. With the above, when we convert a 64k hpte to 4khpte, since this is the first patch, we should clear that H_PAGE_F_GIX and H_PAGE_F_SECOND. We still use them for 64k. I guess you should move this hunk to second patch. -aneesh