[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090205205735.GA21500@elte.hu>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 21:57:35 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>,
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
* Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org> 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.
Yeah. I was the first Linux hacker in history to put a x86 CPU into PAE mode
under Linux 10+ years ago, and i can attest to the 'explodes way too easily'
aspect quite emphatically ;-) Took me 3-4 days to bootstrap it.
> By the by, what are the chances we'll be able to deprecate non-PAE 32-bit?
For the next 10 years: pretty much zero.
Ingo
--
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