[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200508213609.GU8135@suse.de>
Date: Fri, 8 May 2020 23:36:09 +0200
From: Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc: Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/7] mm: Get rid of vmalloc_sync_(un)mappings()
On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 02:33:19PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 7:40 AM Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org> wrote:
> What's the maximum on other system types? It might make more sense to
> take the memory hit and pre-populate all the tables at boot so we
> never have to sync them.
Need to look it up for 5-level paging, with 4-level paging its 64 pages
to pre-populate the vmalloc area.
But that would not solve the problem on x86-32, which needs to
synchronize unmappings on the PMD level.
Joerg
Powered by blists - more mailing lists