Balbir Singh <bsinghar...@gmail.com> writes: > On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 12:45:36 +0530 > "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.ku...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> 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 _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
