[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <498B54A0.7040005@goop.org>
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 13:05:36 -0800
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>
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
Hugh Dickins wrote:
>> 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.
>
There are some later extensions to reuse some of the bits for things
like tlb reload policy (I think; I'd have to check to be sure), so
they're fairly non-pte-like.
>> 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!
>
Yes, that's the gist of it. We could simplify things by having only one
pte format and only have to parameterise with 3/4 level pagetables.
We'd lose support for non-PAE cpus, including the first Pentium M (which
is probably still in fairly wide use, unfortunately).
J
--
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