[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0a3ac234-303c-26b7-abb7-de42025b3e0d@arm.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2020 06:30:35 +0530
From: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
To: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/mm: Make pud_present() check _PAGE_PROTNONE and
_PAGE_PSE as well
On 03/21/2020 01:20 AM, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 3/20/20 6:22 AM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> ...
>>>> +Cc: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill@...temov.name>
>>>> +Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
>>>
>>> Or we can just drop the pud_mknotpresent(). There's no users AFAICS and
>>> only x86 provides it.
>
> +1
>
>>
>> Yes that will be an option but IMHO fixing pud_present() here might be
>> a better choice because,
>>
>> (1) pud_mknotpresent() with fixed pud_present() might be required later
>
>
> It might. Or it might not. Let's wait until it's actually used, and see.
> Dead code is an avoidable expense (adds size, space on the screen, email
> traffic and other wasted time), so let's avoid it here.
Sure, will resend with pud_mknotpresent() dropped.
>
>
>> (2) PMD & PUD will be exact same (THP is supported on either level)
>>
>> Nonetheless, I am happy to go either way.
>>
>
>
> thanks,
Powered by blists - more mailing lists