Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932686AbXBSVPk (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Feb 2007 16:15:40 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932696AbXBSVPk (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Feb 2007 16:15:40 -0500 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:49123 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932686AbXBSVPk (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Feb 2007 16:15:40 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] [RFC] hugetlb: pagetable_operations API From: Arjan van de Ven To: Adam Litke Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <1171913691.22940.30.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20070219183123.27318.27319.stgit@localhost.localdomain> <1171910581.3531.89.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <1171913691.22940.30.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Intel International BV Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 22:15:35 +0100 Message-Id: <1171919736.3531.98.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.2.1 (2.8.2.1-3.fc6) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1921 Lines: 40 On Mon, 2007-02-19 at 13:34 -0600, Adam Litke wrote: > On Mon, 2007-02-19 at 19:43 +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > On Mon, 2007-02-19 at 10:31 -0800, Adam Litke wrote: > > > The page tables for hugetlb mappings are handled differently than page tables > > > for normal pages. Rather than integrating multiple page size support into the > > > main VM (which would tremendously complicate the code) some hooks were created. > > > This allows hugetlb special cases to be handled "out of line" by a separate > > > interface. > > > > ok it makes sense to clean this up.. what I don't like is that there > > STILL are all the double cases... for this to work and be worth it both > > the common case and the hugetlb case should be using the ops structure > > always! Anything else and you're just replacing bad code with bad > > code ;( > > Hmm. Do you think everyone would support an extra pointer indirection > for every handle_pte_fault() call? maybe. I'm not entirely convinced... (I like the cleanup potential a lot code wise.. but if it costs performance, then... well I'd hate to see linux get slower for hugetlbfs) > If not, then I definitely wouldn't > mind creating a default_pagetable_ops and calling into that. ... but without it to be honest, your patch adds nothing real.. there's ONE user of your code, and there's no real cleanup unless you get rid of all the special casing.... since the special casing is the really ugly part of hugetlbfs, not the actual code inside the special case.. -- if you want to mail me at work (you don't), use arjan (at) linux.intel.com Test the interaction between Linux and your BIOS via http://www.linuxfirmwarekit.org - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/