lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Apr]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/6] arm64/mm: Enable memory hot remove
From
Date


On 04/03/2019 06:45 PM, Steven Price wrote:
> On 03/04/2019 13:37, Robin Murphy wrote:
>> [ +Steve ]
>>
>> Hi Anshuman,

Hi Steve,

>>
>> On 03/04/2019 05:30, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h
>>> b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h
>>> index de70c1e..858098e 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h
>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h
>>> @@ -355,6 +355,18 @@ static inline int pmd_protnone(pmd_t pmd)
>>>   }
>>>   #endif
>>>   +#if (CONFIG_PGTABLE_LEVELS > 2)
>>> +#define pmd_large(pmd)    (pmd_val(pmd) && !(pmd_val(pmd) &
>>> PMD_TABLE_BIT))
>>> +#else
>>> +#define pmd_large(pmd) 0
>>> +#endif
>>> +
>>> +#if (CONFIG_PGTABLE_LEVELS > 3)
>>> +#define pud_large(pud)    (pud_val(pud) && !(pud_val(pud) &
>>> PUD_TABLE_BIT))
>>> +#else
>>> +#define pud_large(pmd) 0
>>> +#endif
>>
>> These seem rather different from the versions that Steve is proposing in
>> the generic pagewalk series - can you reach an agreement on which
>> implementation is preferred?
>
> Indeed this doesn't match the version in my series although is quite
> similar.
>
> My desire is that p?d_large represents the hardware architectural
> definition of large page/huge page/section (pick your naming). Although
> now I look more closely this is actually broken in my series (I'll fix
> that up and send a new version shortly) - p?d_sect() is similarly
> conditional.
>
> Is there a good reason not to use the existing p?d_sect() macros
> available on arm64?

Nothing specific. Now I just tried using pud|pmd_sect() which looks good on
multiple configs for 4K/16K/64K. Will migrate pmd|pud_large() to more arch
specific pmd|pud_sect() which would also help in staying clear from your
series.

>
> I'm also surprised by the CONFIG_PGTABLE_LEVEL conditions as they don't
> match the existing conditions for p?d_sect(). Might be worth double
> checking it actually does what you expect.

Right they are bit different. Surely will check. But if pmd|pud_sect() works
out okay will probably go with it as its been there for sometime.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-04-04 08:52    [W:0.086 / U:9.700 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site