From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262511AbVBXWAD (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Feb 2005 17:00:03 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262506AbVBXWAC (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Feb 2005 17:00:02 -0500 Received: from smtp206.mail.sc5.yahoo.com ([216.136.129.96]:5012 "HELO smtp206.mail.sc5.yahoo.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S262511AbVBXV7T (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Feb 2005 16:59:19 -0500 Message-ID: <421E4E27.20004@yahoo.com.au> Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 08:59:03 +1100 From: Nick Piggin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20050105 Debian/1.7.5-1 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hugh Dickins CC: Andi Kleen , "David S. Miller" , benh@kernel.crashing.org, torvalds@osdl.org, akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] page table iterators References: <4214A1EC.4070102@yahoo.com.au> <4214A437.8050900@yahoo.com.au> <20050217194336.GA8314@wotan.suse.de> <1108680578.5665.14.camel@gaston> <20050217230342.GA3115@wotan.suse.de> <20050217153031.011f873f.davem@davemloft.net> <20050217235719.GB31591@wotan.suse.de> <4218840D.6030203@yahoo.com.au> <421B0163.3050802@yahoo.com.au> <421D1737.1050501@yahoo.com.au> <1109224777.5177.33.camel@npiggin-nld.site> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hugh Dickins wrote: > On Thu, 24 Feb 2005, Nick Piggin wrote: > >>pud_addr_end? > > > next = pud_addr_end(addr, end); > > Hmm, yes, I'll go with that, thanks (unless a better idea follows). > > Something I do intend on top of what I sent before, is another set > of three macros, like > > if (pud_none_or_clear_bad(pud)) > continue; > > to replace all the p??_none, p??_bad clauses: not to save space, > but just for clarity, those loops now seeming dominated by the > unlikeliest of cases. > > Has anyone _ever_ seen a p??_ERROR message? I'm inclined to just > put three functions into mm/memory.c to do the p??_ERROR and p??_clear, > but that way the __FILE__ and __LINE__ will always come out the same. > I think if it ever proves a problem, we'd just add in a dump_stack. > I think a function is the most sensible. And a good idea, it should reduce the icache pressure in the loops (although gcc does seem to do a pretty good job of moving unlikely()s away from the fastpath). I think at the point these things get detected, there is little use for having a dump_stack. But we may as well add one anyway if it is an out of line function? Nick