From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A734C43460 for ; Mon, 10 May 2021 10:06:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC17B613CD for ; Mon, 10 May 2021 10:06:08 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org AC17B613CD Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id AE2536B0070; Mon, 10 May 2021 06:06:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id A91836B0071; Mon, 10 May 2021 06:06:07 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 9595E6B0072; Mon, 10 May 2021 06:06:07 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0034.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.34]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D0786B0070 for ; Mon, 10 May 2021 06:06:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin02.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 225C19425 for ; Mon, 10 May 2021 10:06:07 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78124890774.02.02C8B4C Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by imf14.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38C9DC0007FA for ; Mon, 10 May 2021 10:05:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D657915BE; Mon, 10 May 2021 03:06:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.163.77.48] (unknown [10.163.77.48]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6FB2A3F719; Mon, 10 May 2021 03:06:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/thp: Make ARCH_ENABLE_SPLIT_PMD_PTLOCK dependent on PGTABLE_LEVELS > 2 To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, Heiko Carstens , Vasily Gorbik , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , x86@kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <1620621345-29176-1-git-send-email-anshuman.khandual@arm.com> <20210510085313.GB5618@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> From: Anshuman Khandual Message-ID: <843e545a-ca0c-6a1e-2ab0-28ccca182400@arm.com> Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 15:36:29 +0530 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20210510085313.GB5618@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rspamd-Server: rspam01 Authentication-Results: imf14.hostedemail.com; dkim=none; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=arm.com; spf=pass (imf14.hostedemail.com: domain of anshuman.khandual@arm.com designates 217.140.110.172 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=anshuman.khandual@arm.com X-Stat-Signature: aqeeabgxub616x1pziu5wuhnfu4eza4z X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 38C9DC0007FA Received-SPF: none (arm.com>: No applicable sender policy available) receiver=imf14; identity=mailfrom; envelope-from=""; helo=foss.arm.com; client-ip=217.140.110.172 X-HE-DKIM-Result: none/none X-HE-Tag: 1620641143-373406 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On 5/10/21 2:23 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 10:05:45AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote: >> - select ARCH_ENABLE_SPLIT_PMD_PTLOCK if X86_64 || X86_PAE >> + select ARCH_ENABLE_SPLIT_PMD_PTLOCK if (PGTABLE_LEVELS > 2) && (X86_64 || X86_PAE) > > It's still very early on a Monday, but IIRC this new condition is > identical to the pre-existing one. Did not get it, could you please elaborate ?