From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e33.co.us.ibm.com (e33.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.151]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "e33.co.us.ibm.com", Issuer "Equifax" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87268DDEA2 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2007 22:01:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.106]) by e33.co.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l9IC1gNc009026 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2007 08:01:42 -0400 Received: from d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (d03av04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.170]) by d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.5) with ESMTP id l9IC1fb6356126 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2007 06:01:41 -0600 Received: from d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id l9IC1fBl013456 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2007 06:01:41 -0600 Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 07:01:39 -0500 From: Josh Boyer To: benh@kernel.crashing.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] ppc44x: support for 256K PAGE_SIZE Message-ID: <20071018070139.339e2efb@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <1192707914.12879.51.camel@pasglop> References: <200710181108.19413.yur@emcraft.com> <1192704248.13993.36.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1192707914.12879.51.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 21:45:14 +1000 Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > On Thu, 2007-10-18 at 05:44 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > > On Thu, 2007-10-18 at 11:08 +0400, Yuri Tikhonov wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > The following patch adds support for 256KB PAGE_SIZE on ppc44x-based boards. > > > The applications to be run on the kernel with 256KB PAGE_SIZE have to be > > > built using the modified version of binutils, where the MAXPAGESIZE > > > definition is set to 0x40000 (as opposite to standard 0x10000). > > > > Sorry, this is against arch/ppc which is bug fix only. New features > > should be done against arch/powerpc. Also, I'd rather see something > > along the lines of hugetlbfs support instead. > > I slightly disagree on that one. It does make sense in embedded > applications to use larger page sizes like that to compensate for small > TLBs, and hugetlbfs has serious constraints that may well make it > impractical. Out of curiosity, what constraints are those? > Based on that, I'd be tempted to let that in provided it doesn't > requires ugly hacks, which seems to be the case. It still needs to be > adapted to arch/powerpc however, and get closer scrutiny that I didn't > have time to do yet. > > You are the maintainer, so you decide, but my opinion here is that > wanting that is fair enough. I always reserve the right to change my mind. If something makes sense and the code is decent enough then it might very well be acceptable. Requiring a modified binutils makes me a bit nervous though. josh