From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 41x17N2sm4zF2Py
 for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>; Thu, 23 Aug 2018 20:37:03 +1000 (AEST)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2018 05:36:26 -0500
From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Christophe LEROY <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>
Cc: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>,
 Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
 Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
 Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>, aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
 linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] powerpc/mm: fix a warning when a cache is common
 to PGD and hugepages
Message-ID: <20180823103625.GR24439@gate.crashing.org>
References: <2f96bf1a8df1091c642de099ed07c34b5ab9b90a.1534258290.git.christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>
 <4aaca2d27429e6bdadc340fd3b96e7c350c4b2f4.1534258290.git.christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>
 <6dea8d0c-c4ab-49aa-da26-a729c18fa818@linux.ibm.com>
 <006e5f33-b816-7508-faac-da26a860659c@c-s.fr>
 <3e6412ac-c645-908f-a3bb-c9a2a72f4b68@linux.ibm.com>
 <cb121f38-ac89-4971-fd84-5473e7e9ced5@c-s.fr>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
In-Reply-To: <cb121f38-ac89-4971-fd84-5473e7e9ced5@c-s.fr>
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/options/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>

On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 11:40:22AM +0200, Christophe LEROY wrote:
> The only small problème I have is that some version of GCC seems to 
> complain about big memset() (132k and 256k ones). Is there a way to tell 
> GCC we really want to do it ?

I'm not sure what you mean.  Complain, is that a warning, is that an error?
What does it say?  Do you have some example code to reproduce it?  Etc.

Very many things use tiny memsets like that, so you must mean something
more specialised.


Segher