From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/10] alternate 4-level page tables patches From: Nick Piggin In-Reply-To: <20041221002201.GA21986@wotan.suse.de> References: <41C3D453.4040208@yahoo.com.au> <20041220180435.GG4316@wotan.suse.de> <20041220185308.GA24493@wotan.suse.de> <20041221002201.GA21986@wotan.suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 11:47:58 +1100 Message-Id: <1103590078.5121.15.camel@npiggin-nld.site> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andi Kleen Cc: Linus Torvalds , Hugh Dickins , Linux Memory Management , Andrew Morton List-ID: On Tue, 2004-12-21 at 01:22 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > I repeat again: the differences on what code needs > to be changed between my patchkit and Nick's are quite minor. > The thing I prefer about the pud is that the folding method is identical to pmd. If you have a look at asm-generic/pgtable-nopmd.h and -nopud.h, they are the same file, with a few things renamed. > The main difference is just the naming. And that mine is actually > tested on many architectures and and has been in -mm* for some time > and is ready for merging, while Nick's is still in the early stages. > True it will need more testing than yours would, which would almost be able to go in as soon as 2.6.10 was released... but considering most of the hard stuff _is_ your work, then hopefully most problems should be resolved already. I understand you'd like the 4-levels patch to be present in 2.6.11... I don't think that going with the "pud" version would necessarily prevent that from happening. > > > > >> It's just that once you conceptually do it in the middle, a > > >> numbered name like "pml4_t" just doesn't make any sense ( > > > > > > Sorry I didn't invent it, just copied it from the x86-64 architecture > > > manuals because I didn't see any reason to be different. > > > > The thing is, I doubt the x86-64 architecture manuals use "pgd", "pmd" and > > "pte", do they? So regardless, there's no consitent naming. > > There is consistent naming for the highest level at least. > > They use pte, pde, pdpe, pml4e (for the entries, the levels are > called pte, pde, pdp, pml4) > Well I won't argue about naming, because I don't think anyone cares enough for it to be a problem. But pud is consistent with _Linux_ naming, at least (ie. p?d)... Anyway, I'll continue to try to get more architecture support, and let someone else decide between pud and pml4 ;) Although if it looks like it is going to really slow down progress for you, then I am happy to abandon it. Nick -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: aart@kvack.org