From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A911C004C9 for ; Sun, 5 May 2019 06:19:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8E9F92082F for ; Sun, 5 May 2019 06:19:19 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 8E9F92082F Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44xbLF5wfLzDqCK for ; Sun, 5 May 2019 16:19:17 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (mailfrom) smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com (client-ip=148.163.158.5; helo=mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com; envelope-from=rppt@linux.ibm.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 44xbJg3DjCzDqC0 for ; Sun, 5 May 2019 16:17:55 +1000 (AEST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098414.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x4566esN020145 for ; Sun, 5 May 2019 02:17:52 -0400 Received: from e06smtp07.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp07.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.103]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2s9r1av24k-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Sun, 05 May 2019 02:17:52 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp07.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Sun, 5 May 2019 07:17:50 +0100 Received: from b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.198) by e06smtp07.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.137) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Sun, 5 May 2019 07:17:42 +0100 Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.160]) by b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x456Hf6G48759002 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Sun, 5 May 2019 06:17:41 GMT Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59F9EA405F; Sun, 5 May 2019 06:17:41 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D3E4A4054; Sun, 5 May 2019 06:17:39 +0000 (GMT) Received: from rapoport-lnx (unknown [9.148.8.112]) by b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Sun, 5 May 2019 06:17:39 +0000 (GMT) Date: Sun, 5 May 2019 09:17:37 +0300 From: Mike Rapoport To: Paul Burton Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/15] mips: switch to generic version of pte allocation References: <1556810922-20248-1-git-send-email-rppt@linux.ibm.com> <1556810922-20248-9-git-send-email-rppt@linux.ibm.com> <20190502190945.rrrxfxo3rbhgc3cx@pburton-laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190502190945.rrrxfxo3rbhgc3cx@pburton-laptop> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 19050506-0028-0000-0000-0000036A763C X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19050506-0029-0000-0000-00002429E828 Message-Id: <20190505061737.GD15755@rapoport-lnx> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-05-05_04:, , signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=2 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=816 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1905050056 X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Michal Hocko , Catalin Marinas , Palmer Dabbelt , "linux-mips@vger.kernel.org" , Guo Ren , "linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" , Helge Deller , "x86@kernel.org" , Russell King , Matthew Wilcox , Geert Uytterhoeven , Matt Turner , Sam Creasey , Arnd Bergmann , "linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-um@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org" , Greentime Hu , "nios2-dev@lists.rocketboards.org" , Guan Xuetao , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Richard Kuo , Richard Weinberger , Ley Foon Tan , Andrew Morton , "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On Thu, May 02, 2019 at 07:09:47PM +0000, Paul Burton wrote: > Hi Mike, > > On Thu, May 02, 2019 at 06:28:35PM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote: > > MIPS allocates kernel PTE pages with > > > > __get_free_pages(GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_ZERO, PTE_ORDER) > > > > and user PTE pages with > > > > alloc_pages(GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_ZERO, PTE_ORDER) > > That bit isn't quite true - we don't use __GFP_ZERO in pte_alloc_one() & > instead call clear_highpage() on the allocated page. Not that I have a > problem with using __GFP_ZERO - it seems like the more optimal choice. > It just might be worth mentioning the change & expected equivalent > behavior. You are right, I'll fix the changelog. > Otherwise: > > Acked-by: Paul Burton Thanks. > Thanks, > Paul > -- Sincerely yours, Mike.