Re: [discuss] Re: BUG in x86_64 hugepage support

[Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@us.ibm.com>]

On 15.03.2006 [09:50:17 +0100], Jan Beulich wrote:
> >diff -urpN 2.6.16-rc6-mm1/mm/hugetlb.c 2.6.16-rc6-mm1-dev/mm/hugetlb.c
> >--- 2.6.16-rc6-mm1/mm/hugetlb.c	2006-03-14 22:49:44.000000000 -0800
> >+++ 2.6.16-rc6-mm1-dev/mm/hugetlb.c	2006-03-14 22:51:31.000000000 -0800
> >@@ -740,6 +740,7 @@ void hugetlb_change_protection(struct vm
> > 			continue;
> > 		if (!pte_none(*ptep)) {
> > 			pte = huge_ptep_get_and_clear(mm, address, ptep);
> >+			pgprot_val(newprot) |= _PAGE_PSE;
> > 			pte = pte_modify(pte, newprot);
> > 			set_huge_pte_at(mm, address, ptep, pte);
> > 			lazy_mmu_prot_update(pte);
> 
> This is architecture independent code - you shouldn't be using
> _PAGE_PSE here. Probably x86-64 (and then likely also i386) should
> define their own set_huge_pte_at(), and use that# to or in the needed
> flag?

Good point, makes sense to me.

Thanks,
Nish

-- 
Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@us.ibm.com>
IBM Linux Technology Center

--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>