Messages in this thread | | | From | Daniel Phillips <> | Subject | Re: discontiguous memory platforms | Date | Wed, 1 May 2002 15:21:39 +0200 |
| |
On Thursday 02 May 2002 10:50, Roman Zippel wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, 2 May 2002, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > > What I > > care about is not to clobber the common code with additional overlapping > > common code abstractions. > > Just to throw in an alternative: On m68k we map currently everything > together into a single virtual area. This means the virtual<->physical > conversion is a bit more expensive and mem_map is simply indexed by the > the virtual address.
Are you talking about mm_ptov and friends here? What are the loops for? Could you please describe the most extreme case of physical discontiguity you're handling?
> It works nicely, it just needs two small patches in the initializition > code, which aren't integrated yet. I think it's very close to what Daniel > wants, only that the logical and virtual address are identical.
Yes, since logical and virtual kernel addresses in config_nonlinear differ only by a constant (PAGE_OFFSET) then setting the constant to zero gives me your case.
-- Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |