linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] mips,mm: Reinstate move_pte optimization

To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mips,mm: Reinstate move_pte optimization
From: Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 11:15:43 +0100
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@tiscali.co.uk>, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, Carsten Otte <cotte@de.ibm.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Darren Hart <dvhltc@us.ibm.com>, Ulrich Drepper <drepper@gmail.com>
In-reply-to: <20100107151527.8784.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
References: <20091225083305.AA78.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <alpine.LSU.2.00.0912301437420.3369@sister.anvils> <20100107151527.8784.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17)
On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 03:32:57PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:

> > to include/linux/mm.h - I'd prefer to keep it private if we can.
> > But for completeness, this would involve resurrecting the 2.6.19
> > MIPS move_pte(), which makes sure mremap() move doesn't interfere
> > with our assumptions.  Something like
> > 
> > #define __HAVE_ARCH_MOVE_PTE
> > pte_t move_pte(pte_t pte, pgprot_t prot, unsigned long old_addr,
> >                                          unsigned long new_addr)
> > {
> >     if (pte_present(pte) && is_zero_pfn(pte_pfn(pte)))
> >             pte = mk_pte(ZERO_PAGE(new_addr), prot);
> >     return pte;
> > }
> > 
> > in arch/mips/include/asm/pgtable.h.
> 
> I agree with resurrecting mips move_pte. At least your patch
> passed my cross compile test :)
> 
> Ralf, can you please review following patch?

Looks good.

Acked-by: Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>

Thanks,

  Ralf

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