From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e23smtp01.au.ibm.com (e23smtp01.au.ibm.com [202.81.31.143]) (using TLSv1 with cipher CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ECE0B1A028D for ; Wed, 13 Jan 2016 17:04:08 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from localhost by e23smtp01.au.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Wed, 13 Jan 2016 16:04:07 +1000 Received: from d23relay09.au.ibm.com (d23relay09.au.ibm.com [9.185.63.181]) by d23dlp01.au.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 459D02CE8057 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 2016 17:03:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from d23av03.au.ibm.com (d23av03.au.ibm.com [9.190.234.97]) by d23relay09.au.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id u0D63jZr59506806 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 2016 17:03:53 +1100 Received: from d23av03.au.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d23av03.au.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id u0D63KsL005962 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 2016 17:03:20 +1100 From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" To: Balbir Singh Cc: benh@kernel.crashing.org, paulus@samba.org, mpe@ellerman.id.au, Michael Neuling , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH V1 01/33] powerpc/mm: add _PAGE_HASHPTE similar to 4K hash In-Reply-To: <20160113134821.41d4e006@cotter.ozlabs.ibm.com> References: <1452582968-22669-1-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1452582968-22669-2-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20160113134821.41d4e006@cotter.ozlabs.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 11:32:53 +0530 Message-ID: <87si22c8z6.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Balbir Singh writes: > On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 12:45:36 +0530 > "Aneesh Kumar K.V" wrote: > >> Not really needed. But this brings it back to as it was before >> > > Could you expand on not really needed. Could the changelog describe how > the bits will be used in the follow on patches. > What confused me in the beginning was difference between 4k and 64k page size. I was trying to find out whether we miss a hpte flush in any scenario because of this. ie, a pte update on a linux pte, for which we are doing a parallel hash pte insert. After looking at it closer my understanding is this won't happen because pte update also look at _PAGE_BUSY and we will wait for hash pte insert to finish before going ahead with the pte update. But to avoid further confusion I was wondering whether we should keep this closer to what we have with __hash_page_4k. Hence the statement "Not really needed". -aneesh