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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).