On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 01:38:34PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> And now I've said pgd/pud/p4d/pmd so many times that I've confused
> myself and think I'm wrong again, and I think that historically -
> originally - we always had a pgd, and then the pmd didn't exist
> because it was folded into it.
On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 12:08 PM Vineet Gupta wrote:
>
> > And yes, pmd_clear_bad() should just go away. We have
> >
> > static inline int pmd_none_or_clear_bad(pmd_t *pmd)
> > {
> > if (pmd_none(*pmd))
> > return 1;
> > if (unlikely(pmd_bad(*pmd))) {
> >
On 10/14/19 11:25 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 11:02 AM Vineet Gupta wrote:
>>
>> I suppose we could but
>>
>> (a) It would be asymmetric with the __p{u,4}d_free_tlb() changes in [1] and
>> [2].
>
> Your patch is already assymmetric wrt those anyway - you had to add that
>
On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 11:02 AM Vineet Gupta wrote:
>
> I suppose we could but
>
> (a) It would be asymmetric with the __p{u,4}d_free_tlb() changes in [1] and
> [2].
Your patch is already assymmetric wrt those anyway - you had to add that
+#else
+#define pmd_free_tlb(tlb, pmdp, address)
On 10/14/19 10:41 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 3:38 PM Vineet Gupta
> wrote:
>>
>> This is inine with similar patches for nopud [1] and nop4d [2] cases.
>
> I don't think your patch is wrong, but wouldn't it be easier and
> cleaner to just do this instead
>
> --- a/in
On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 3:38 PM Vineet Gupta wrote:
>
> This is inine with similar patches for nopud [1] and nop4d [2] cases.
I don't think your patch is wrong, but wouldn't it be easier and
cleaner to just do this instead
--- a/include/asm-generic/pgtable-nopmd.h
+++ b/include/asm-gener
This is inine with similar patches for nopud [1] and nop4d [2] cases.
However I'm not really sure I understand clearly how the nopmd code is
supposed to work (for a 2 tier paging system) - hence the RFC.
Consider free_pmd_range() simplified/annotated below
free_pmd_range
...
pmd
