[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0902052046240.18431@blonde.anvils>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 20:51:40 +0000 (GMT)
From: Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
William Lee Irwin III <wli@...ementarian.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: pud_bad vs pud_bad
On Thu, 5 Feb 2009, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > However... I forget how the folding works out. The pgd in the 32-bit
> > PAE case used to have just the pfn and the present bit set in that
> > little array of four entries: if pud_bad() ends up getting applied
> > to that, I guess it will blow up.
>
> Ah, that's a good point.
>
> > If so, my preferred answer would actually be to make those 4 entries
> > look more like real ptes; but you may think I'm being a bit silly.
>
> Hardware doesn't allow it. It will explode (well, trap) if you set anything
> other than P in the top level.
Oh, interesting, I'd never realized that.
> By the by, what are the chances we'll be able to deprecate non-PAE 32-bit?
I sincerely hope 0! I shed no tears at losing support for NUMAQ,
but why should we be forced to double all the 32-bit ptes? You want
us all to be using NX? Or you just want to cut your test/edit matrix -
that I can well understand!
Hugh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists