[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RFC PATCH 01/09] robust VM per_cpu core

To: Andi Kleen <>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 01/09] robust VM per_cpu core
From: Steven Rostedt <>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 06:46:01 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: LKML <>, Rusty Russell <>, Paul Mackerras <>, Nick Piggin <>, Andrew Morton <>, Linus Torvalds <>, Ingo Molnar <>, Thomas Gleixner <>, Martin Mares <>,,,, Chris Zankel <>, Marc Gauthier <>, Joe Taylor <>,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
In-reply-to: <>
Original-recipient: rfc822;
References: <> <> <>
On Wed, 17 May 2006, Andi Kleen wrote:

> > As well as the following three functions:
> >
> > pud_t *pud_boot_alloc(struct mm_struct *mm, pgd_t *pgd, unsigned long addr,
> >                      int cpu);
> > pmd_t *pmd_boot_alloc(struct mm_struct *mm, pud_t *pud, unsigned long addr,
> >                      int cpu);
> > pte_t *pte_boot_alloc(struct mm_struct *mm, pmd_t *pmd, unsigned long addr,
> >                      int cpu);
> I'm not sure you can just put them like this into generic code. Some
> architectures are doing strange things with them.

Hmm, like what?

> And we already have boot_ioremap on some architectures. Why is that not
> enough?

I thought about using boot_ioremap, but it seems to be an abuse.  Since
I'm not mapping io, but actual memory pages.  So the solution to that
seemed more of a hack.  I then would need to worry about grabbing pages
that were node specific and getting the physical addresses.  It just
looked like a cleaner solution to have an API that was for exactly what it
was meant for.

-- Steve

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>