On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > >> The core VM can do that but the hugetlb architectural code can't fall > >> back to smaller page sizes. It also should not be put into a situation > >> where it needs to do so given the semantics it must honor. > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 10:15:00AM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > Wel we could potentially add a handle_pmd_fault to the vm...? > > Unconscionably foul. I guess x86-uber-alles pagetables in the core vm > is the Linux way, though.
Yes sadly true. The alternative is to add a page table abstraction layer first. > On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > >> Also, the final assertion is inaccurate. Fault handlers must instantiate > >> pages of order mapping->order when faulting in a page of a file with > >> a given pagecache size. The semantics of faulting and mmap()'ing are > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 10:15:00AM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > Why? I agree that the page state of the higher order page must be updated > > consistently but one can use a pte to map a 4k chunk of a higher > > order page. > > Probably just terminological disagreement here. I was referring to > allocating the higher-order page from the fault path here, not mapping > it or a piece of it with a user pte. Ah. Okay. I have some dysfunctional patches here that implement mmap support. Would you be willing to take care of that aspect of things? Then I can focus on the other VM pieces. I am going to post them following this message. These are an absolute mess. They do not compile etc etc. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/