[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240523223745.395337-1-peterx@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2024 18:37:43 -0400
From: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
To: linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
peterx@...hat.com,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
x86@...nel.org
Subject: [PATCH RFC 0/2] mm/x86/pat: Fix two possible issues
I'm recently looking at the possibility of mapping PCIe large bars to use
huge mappings (just like thp or hugetlb). Then I noticed these only when
reading the code.
I don't think I'm familiar enough with the whole PAT system, however I
figured I should post them out to collect some comments, hencing marking
this small series as RFC.
Please feel free to have a look at each of them; I've put more words in the
commit message than here, as the two issues are not related. Any comments
are welcomed.
Thanks,
Peter Xu (2):
mm/x86/pat: Only untrack the pfn range if unmap region
mm/x86/pat: Do proper PAT bit shift for large mappings
mm/huge_memory.c | 4 ++--
mm/memory.c | 5 ++---
2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
--
2.45.0
Powered by blists - more mailing lists