[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170203181626.GL23547@arm.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2017 18:16:27 +0000
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To: Robert Richter <robert.richter@...ium.com>
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
David Daney <david.daney@...ium.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
Yisheng Xie <xieyisheng1@...wei.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] arm64: mm: Fix NOMAP page initialization
On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 04:14:14PM +0100, Robert Richter wrote:
> On 17.01.17 19:16:56, Will Deacon wrote:
> > I can't really see the trend given that, for system time, your
> > pfn_valid_within results have a variance of ~9 and the early_pfn_valid
> > results have a variance of ~92. Given that the variance seems to come
> > about due to the reboots, I think we need more numbers to establish whether
> > the data sets end up largely overlapping or if they really are disjoint.
>
> Assuming the numbers of both versions are not significant, please
> apply one or the other.
I'd rather apply the pfn_valid_within version, but please can you Ack the
patch first, since there was some confusion when it was posted about a
translation fault that was never reproduced.
Thanks,
Will
Powered by blists - more mailing lists