On Mon, 2015-09-28 at 10:26 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > Scott Wood <scottw...@freescale.com> writes: > > > On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 12:18 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > > > Scott Wood <scottw...@freescale.com> writes: > > > > > > > On Mon, 2015-09-21 at 12:10 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > > > > > This patch series attempt to update book3s 64 linux page table > > > > > format to > > > > > make it more flexible. Our current pte format is very restrictive > > > > > and we > > > > > overload multiple pte bits. This is due to the non-availability of > > > > > free > > > > > bits > > > > > in pte_t. We use pte_t to track the validity of 4K subpages. This > > > > > patch > > > > > series free up pte_t of 11 bits by moving 4K subpage tracking to the > > > > > lower half of PTE page. The pte format is updated such that we have > > > > > a > > > > > better method for identifying a pte entry at pmd level. This will > > > > > also > > > > > enable > > > > > us to implement hugetlb migration(not yet done in this series). > > > > > > > > > > Before making the changes to the pte format, I am splitting the > > > > > pte header definition such that we now have the below layout for > > > > > headers > > > > > > > > > > book3s > > > > > 32 > > > > > hash.h pgtable.h > > > > > 64 > > > > > hash.h pgtable.h hash-4k.h hash-64k.h > > > > > booke > > > > > 32 > > > > > pgtable.h pte-40x.h pte-44x.h pte-8xx.h pte-fsl-booke.h > > > > > 64 > > > > > pgtable-4k.h pgtable-64k.h pgtable.h > > > > > > > > 40x and 8xx are not booke. Is there a better name that can be used > > > > for > > > > this > > > > directory? Maybe "nohash", similar to arch/powerpc/mm/tlb_nohash.c? > > > > > > > > > > I looked at Documentation/powerpc/cpu_families.txt to name the headers. > > > It lists then below booke. > > > > It lists 40x as booke (there was some question about that when > > cpu_families.txt was added... I guess you could call it "proto-booke", > > though it doesn't use CONFIG_BOOKE in Linux), but 8xx is in its own > > category. > > > > In any case, "nohash" is the term used elsewhere. > > How about using swtlb ? (nohash always confused me, It would be nice to > be explict and us software tlb ?)
I'd prefer nohash. Besides being existing practice (what's confusing about it?), e6500 is nohash but has a partial hw tlb, and 603 is considered hash despite having a software-loaded tlb. -Scott _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
