On 10/10/19 4:07 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 6:10 PM Thomas Hellström (VMware)
wrote:
Your original patch does exactly the same!
Oh, no. You misread my original patch.
Look again.
The logic in my original patch was very different. It said that
- *if* we have a
On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 6:10 PM Thomas Hellström (VMware)
wrote:
>
> Your original patch does exactly the same!
Oh, no. You misread my original patch.
Look again.
The logic in my original patch was very different. It said that
- *if* we have a pmd_entry function, then we obviously call that
On 10/10/19 1:51 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 3:31 PM Thomas Hellström (VMware)
wrote:
On 10/9/19 10:20 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
You *have* to call split_huge_pmd() if you're doing to call the
pte_entry() function.
End of story.
So is it that you want pte_entry() to be
On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 4:51 PM Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> (a) right now nobody wants the "skip" behavior. You think you'll
> eventually want it
>
> (b) right now, the "return positive value" is actually a horribly
> ugly pointless hack, which could be made to be an error value and
> cleaned up
On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 3:31 PM Thomas Hellström (VMware)
wrote:
>
> On 10/9/19 10:20 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > You *have* to call split_huge_pmd() if you're doing to call the
> > pte_entry() function.
> >
> > End of story.
>
> So is it that you want pte_entry() to be strictly called for
On 10/10/19 12:30 AM, Thomas Hellström (VMware) wrote:
On 10/9/19 10:20 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 1:06 PM Thomas Hellström (VMware)
wrote:
On 10/9/19 9:20 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Don't you get it? There *is* no PTE level if you didn't split.
Hmm, This paragraph makes
On 10/9/19 10:20 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 1:06 PM Thomas Hellström (VMware)
wrote:
On 10/9/19 9:20 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Don't you get it? There *is* no PTE level if you didn't split.
Hmm, This paragraph makes me think we have very different perceptions about
On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 1:06 PM Thomas Hellström (VMware)
wrote:
>
> On 10/9/19 9:20 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > Don't you get it? There *is* no PTE level if you didn't split.
>
> Hmm, This paragraph makes me think we have very different perceptions about
> what I'm trying to achieve.
It's
On 10/9/19 9:20 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
No. Your logic is garbage. The above code is completely broken.
YOU CAN NOT AVOID TRHE SPLIT AND THEN GO ON AT THE PTE LEVEL.
Don't you get it? There *is* no PTE level if you didn't split.
Hmm, This paragraph makes me think we have very different
On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 11:52 AM Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
>
> Hmm, so we have the following cases we need to handle when returning
> from the pmd_entry() handler.
No, we really don't.
> 1) Huge pmd was handled - Returns 0 and continues.
No.
That case simply DOES NOT EXIST.
The only case that
Hi,
On 10/9/19 7:17 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 10:03 AM Thomas Hellström (VMware)
> wrote:
>> Nope, it handles the hugepages by ignoring them, since they should be
>> read-only, but if pmd_entry() was called with something else than a
>> hugepage, then it requests the
On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 10:03 AM Thomas Hellström (VMware)
wrote:
>
> Nope, it handles the hugepages by ignoring them, since they should be
> read-only, but if pmd_entry() was called with something else than a
> hugepage, then it requests the fallback, but never a split.
But PAGE_WALK_FALLBACK
On 10/9/19 6:21 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 8:27 AM Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
Do we have any current user that expect split_huge_pmd() in this scenario.
No. There are no current users of the pmd callback and the pte
callback at all, that I could find.
But it looks like
On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 8:27 AM Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>
> Do we have any current user that expect split_huge_pmd() in this scenario.
No. There are no current users of the pmd callback and the pte
callback at all, that I could find.
But it looks like the new drm use does want a "I can't
Hi, Kirill.
Thanks for reviewing.
On 10/9/19 5:27 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 11:15:02AM +0200, Thomas Hellström (VMware) wrote:
From: Thomas Hellstrom
The pagewalk code was unconditionally splitting transhuge pmds when a
pte_entry was present. However ideally we'd
On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 11:15:02AM +0200, Thomas Hellström (VMware) wrote:
> From: Thomas Hellstrom
>
> The pagewalk code was unconditionally splitting transhuge pmds when a
> pte_entry was present. However ideally we'd want to handle transhuge pmds
> in the pmd_entry function and ptes in
From: Thomas Hellstrom
The pagewalk code was unconditionally splitting transhuge pmds when a
pte_entry was present. However ideally we'd want to handle transhuge pmds
in the pmd_entry function and ptes in pte_entry function. So don't split
huge pmds when there is a pmd_entry function present,
17 matches
Mail list logo
