[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.01.0909080712200.7458@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 07:13:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
cc: Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/8] mm: reinstate ZERO_PAGE
On Tue, 8 Sep 2009, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> Without looking closely, why is it a big problem to have a
> !HAVE PTE SPECIAL case? Couldn't it just be a check for
> pfn == zero_pfn that is conditionally compiled away for pte
> special architectures anyway?
At least traditionally, there wasn't a single zero_pfn, but multiple (for
VIPT caches that have performance issues with aliases). But yeah, we could
check just the pfn number, and allow any architecture to do it.
Linus
--
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