On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 06:50:56PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > The magic, which I cut out, will rewrite the "jmp 6f, nops" thing to
> > "jmp %l[y_{yes,no}]" at the alternative patching and we'll loose the
> > dynamic test, pinning the condition forever more.
>
> Hrm. Memory seems have to
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 06:50:56PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > The magic, which I cut out, will rewrite the "jmp 6f, nops" thing to
> > "jmp %l[y_{yes,no}]" at the alternative patching and we'll loose the
> > dynamic test, pinning the condition forever more.
>
> Hrm. Memory seems have to
On Fri, 22 Jun 2018, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 06:16:05PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Fri, 22 Jun 2018, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 03:35:18PM +, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> > > > How is that supposed to work correctly?
> > > >
> > >
On Fri, 22 Jun 2018, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 06:16:05PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Fri, 22 Jun 2018, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 03:35:18PM +, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> > > > How is that supposed to work correctly?
> > > >
> > >
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 06:16:05PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2018, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 03:35:18PM +, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > How is that supposed to work correctly?
> > >
> > > start_kernel()
> > >
> > > trap_init()
> > >
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 06:16:05PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2018, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 03:35:18PM +, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > How is that supposed to work correctly?
> > >
> > > start_kernel()
> > >
> > > trap_init()
> > >
On Fri, 22 Jun 2018, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 03:35:18PM +, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > Second thoughts.
> > > >
> > > > The only place where __pgtable_l5_enabled() is used in common.c is in
> > > > early_identify_cpu() which is marked __init. So how is that
On Fri, 22 Jun 2018, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 03:35:18PM +, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > Second thoughts.
> > > >
> > > > The only place where __pgtable_l5_enabled() is used in common.c is in
> > > > early_identify_cpu() which is marked __init. So how is that
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 03:35:18PM +, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2018, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 02:05:47PM +, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > On Tue, 12 Jun 2018, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > >
> > > > __pgtable_l5_enabled shouldn't be needed after
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 03:35:18PM +, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2018, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 02:05:47PM +, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > On Tue, 12 Jun 2018, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > >
> > > > __pgtable_l5_enabled shouldn't be needed after
On Fri, 22 Jun 2018, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 02:05:47PM +, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 Jun 2018, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> >
> > > __pgtable_l5_enabled shouldn't be needed after system has booted, we can
> > > mark it as __initdata, but it requires
On Fri, 22 Jun 2018, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 02:05:47PM +, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 Jun 2018, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> >
> > > __pgtable_l5_enabled shouldn't be needed after system has booted, we can
> > > mark it as __initdata, but it requires
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 02:05:47PM +, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2018, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>
> > __pgtable_l5_enabled shouldn't be needed after system has booted, we can
> > mark it as __initdata, but it requires preparation.
> >
> > This patch moves early cpu
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 02:05:47PM +, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2018, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>
> > __pgtable_l5_enabled shouldn't be needed after system has booted, we can
> > mark it as __initdata, but it requires preparation.
> >
> > This patch moves early cpu
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> __pgtable_l5_enabled shouldn't be needed after system has booted, we can
> mark it as __initdata, but it requires preparation.
>
> This patch moves early cpu initialization into a separate translation
> unit. This limits effect of
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> __pgtable_l5_enabled shouldn't be needed after system has booted, we can
> mark it as __initdata, but it requires preparation.
>
> This patch moves early cpu initialization into a separate translation
> unit. This limits effect of
__pgtable_l5_enabled shouldn't be needed after system has booted, we can
mark it as __initdata, but it requires preparation.
This patch moves early cpu initialization into a separate translation
unit. This limits effect of USE_EARLY_PGTABLE_L5 to less code.
Without the change cpu_init() uses
__pgtable_l5_enabled shouldn't be needed after system has booted, we can
mark it as __initdata, but it requires preparation.
This patch moves early cpu initialization into a separate translation
unit. This limits effect of USE_EARLY_PGTABLE_L5 to less code.
Without the change cpu_init() uses
18 matches
Mail list logo
