[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8191d221-d307-83b1-165f-2fbb5f7149da@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2021 17:38:21 +0100
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
x86@...nel.org, "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/4] x86/vmemmap: Handle unpopulated sub-pmd ranges
On 10.03.21 22:58, Oscar Salvador wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 06:58:26PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> Thinking again, I guess it might be a good idea to factor out the core
>> functions into common code. For the optimization part, it might make sense
>> too pass some "state" structure that contains e.g., "unused_pmd_start".
>
> Yeah, that really sounds like a good thing to do.
>
>>
>> Then we don't have diverging implementations of essentially the same thing.
>>
>> Of course, we can do that on top of this series - unifying both
>> implementations.
>
> I would rather do it on top of this series, not because I am lazy, but
> rather fairly busy and I will not be able to spend much time on it
> anytime soon.
>
> Once this series gets merged, I commit to have a look into that.
>
Sure, makes sense - thanks!
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists