On Thu, 24 Feb 2005, Nick Piggin wrote: > Hugh Dickins wrote: > > > I'm inlining pmd and pud levels, but not pte and pgd levels. > > OK - that's probably sufficient for debugging. There is only so > much that can go wrong in the middle levels...
Yes, that was my thinking. > how does it look > performance wise? (I can give it a test when it gets split out) Yesterday shattered in various directions, I hope to try today. > > One point worth making, I do believe throughout that whatever the > > address layout, "end" cannot be 0 - BUG_ON(addr >= end) assures. Of course, that does allow some simplifications in your for_each macros; but it still looked like my p??_limits were better for shortest codepath, and close to yours for codesize. > OK after sleeping on it, I'm warming to your way. > > I don't think it makes something like David's modifications any > easier, but mine didn't go a long way to that end either. And > being a more incremental approach gives us more room to move in > future (for example, maybe toward something that really *will* > accommodate the bitmap walking code nicely). I'll take a quick look at David's today. Just so long as we don't make them harder. > So I'd be pretty happy for you to queue this up with Andrew for > 2.6.12. Anyone else? Oh, okay, thanks. You weren't very happy with p??_limit(addr, end), and good naming is important to me. I didn't care for your tentative p??_span or p??_span_end. Would p??_end be better? p??_enda would be fun for one of them... Hugh - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
