From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 20 Sep 2001 18:52:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 20 Sep 2001 18:52:04 -0400 Received: from [195.223.140.107] ([195.223.140.107]:12278 "EHLO athlon.random") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 20 Sep 2001 18:51:54 -0400 Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 00:52:25 +0200 From: Andrea Arcangeli To: "David S. Miller" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: flush_tlb_all in vmalloc_area_pages Message-ID: <20010921005225.K729@athlon.random> In-Reply-To: <20010907165612.T11329@athlon.random> <20010920.142638.68040129.davem@redhat.com> <20010921002547.G729@athlon.random> <20010920.152919.35356833.davem@redhat.com> <20010921003845.J729@athlon.random> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20010921003845.J729@athlon.random>; from andrea@suse.de on Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 12:38:45AM +0200 X-GnuPG-Key-URL: http://e-mind.com/~andrea/aa.gnupg.asc X-PGP-Key-URL: http://e-mind.com/~andrea/aa.asc Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 12:38:45AM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 03:29:19PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote: > > Please, I would heavily suggest leaving this area until 2.5.x there > > ok Linus please apply to next pre patch, I understood from David that for him the direct mapping can overlap the vmalloc virtual address space, it really doesn't make much sense to me but since this is a noop for me and I trust him, we can really delay this to 2.5: --- 2.4.10pre12aa2/mm/vmalloc.c.~1~ Thu Sep 20 01:44:20 2001 +++ 2.4.10pre12aa2/mm/vmalloc.c Fri Sep 21 00:40:48 2001 @@ -144,6 +144,7 @@ int ret; dir = pgd_offset_k(address); + flush_cache_all(); spin_lock(&init_mm.page_table_lock); do { pmd_t *pmd; And btw, now I suspect David can have also have an arguments for the tlb_flush removal (infact the problem is the same, if the address space is shared by direct mapping and vmalloc we'd also need to flush the tlb), but such one isn't really a noop for the other archs so I will be more concerned not to reintroduce it and to at least just put an #ifndef __i386__ around it (safe for both parts). Andrea