On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 09:18:49AM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> In followup patch we want to increase the va range which will result
> in us requiring high_slices to have more than 64 bits. To enable this
> convert high_slices to bitmap. We keep the number bits same in this patch
> and later change that to larger value
>
> Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.ku...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
> arch/powerpc/include/asm/page_64.h | 15 +++---
> arch/powerpc/mm/slice.c | 106
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
> 2 files changed, 76 insertions(+), 45 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/page_64.h
> b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/page_64.h
> index dd5f0712afa2..7f72659b7999 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/page_64.h
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/page_64.h
> @@ -98,19 +98,16 @@ extern u64 ppc64_pft_size;
> #define GET_LOW_SLICE_INDEX(addr) ((addr) >> SLICE_LOW_SHIFT)
> #define GET_HIGH_SLICE_INDEX(addr) ((addr) >> SLICE_HIGH_SHIFT)
>
> +#ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
> struct slice_mask {
> u16 low_slices;
Can we move low_slices as well, although we don't need it
it'll just make the code consistent.
> - u64 high_slices;
> + DECLARE_BITMAP(high_slices, 64);
> };
>
>
> static void slice_print_mask(const char *label, struct slice_mask mask)
> {
> - char *p, buf[16 + 3 + 64 + 1];
> + char *p, buf[SLICE_NUM_LOW + 3 + SLICE_NUM_HIGH + 1];
> int i;
>
> if (!_slice_debug)
> @@ -60,8 +55,12 @@ static void slice_print_mask(const char *label, struct
> slice_mask mask)
> *(p++) = ' ';
> *(p++) = '-';
> *(p++) = ' ';
> - for (i = 0; i < SLICE_NUM_HIGH; i++)
> - *(p++) = (mask.high_slices & (1ul << i)) ? '1' : '0';
> + for (i = 0; i < SLICE_NUM_HIGH; i++) {
> + if (test_bit(i, mask.high_slices))
> + *(p++) = '1';
> + else
> + *(p++) = '0';
> + }
Can we move to using %*pbl or bitmap_print_to_pagebuf
> *(p++) = 0;
>
>
Balbir Singh.
