From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Message-ID: <1385085968.26020.0.camel@concordia> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] powerpc: mm: change pgtable index size for 64K page From: Michael Ellerman To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 13:06:08 +1100 In-Reply-To: <1385077581.4882.30.camel@pasglop> References: <1385000275-5988-1-git-send-email-pingfank@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1385000275-5988-2-git-send-email-pingfank@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20131121221150.GB26359@iris.ozlabs.ibm.com> <1385077581.4882.30.camel@pasglop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Paul Mackerras , Liu Ping Fan List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, 2013-11-22 at 10:46 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Fri, 2013-11-22 at 09:11 +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 10:17:55AM +0800, Liu Ping Fan wrote: > > > For 64K page, we waste half of the pte_t page. With this patch, after > > > changing PGD_INDEX_SIZE from 12 to 11, PTE_INDEX_SIZE from 8 to 9, > > > we can improve the usage of pte_t page and shrink the continuous phys > > > size for pgd_t. > > Also you did you miss that we use the second half to store the > per-subpage hash info when using 64k on top of HW 4k ? Given the subtleties perhaps a nice big block comment is in order ? :) cheers