From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 21:54:17 +1000 Message-ID: <87abdz84d2.wl%peter@chubb.wattle.id.au> From: peter@chubb.wattle.id.au Subject: Re: PTE access rules & abstraction In-Reply-To: <20080923095054.GA29951@wotan.suse.de> References: <1221846139.8077.25.camel@pasglop> <48D739B2.1050202@goop.org> <1222117551.12085.39.camel@pasglop> <20080923031037.GA11907@wotan.suse.de> <1222147886.12085.93.camel@pasglop> <48D88904.4030909@goop.org> <1222152572.12085.129.camel@pasglop> <20080923095054.GA29951@wotan.suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Nick Piggin Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Jeremy Fitzhardinge , Linux Memory Management List , Linux Kernel list , Hugh Dickins List-ID: >>>>> "Nick" == Nick Piggin writes: Nick> On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 04:49:32PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt Nick> wrote: >> > What is the complete set of primitives we need? I also noticed >> that a > number of the existing pagetable operations are used only >> once or twice > in the core code; I wonder if we really need such >> special cases, or > whether we can make each arch pte operation >> carry a bit more weight? >> >> Yes, that was some of my concern. It's getting close to having one >> API per call site :-) Nick> I don't think that is a huge problem as such... if there was Nick> lots of repeated uses of the API I'd also be concerned about mm/ Nick> code not being well factored :) Is it worth taking another look at the page-table abstraction layer that Darren Williams posted here last year? PeterC -- 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: email@kvack.org