Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 3 Apr 2008 14:52:35 +0900 | From | Paul Mundt <> | Subject | Re: HugeTLB vs. SH3 cpu |
| |
On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 11:15:38AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > On (02/04/08 17:04), Paul Mundt didst pronounce: > > The problem is that the hugetlb Kconfig stuff is a complete mess. There's > > a semi-decoupling between HUGETLBFS and HUGETLB_PAGE, though they both > > depend on each other. > > I believe the original intention was that HUGETLB_PAGE would build the > hugepage pool and the arch-specific code and HUGETLBFS would be the userspace > interface but not necessarily the only one. Whatever the original intention, > it's no longer the case as they have become inter-dependant. Fixing it is > not straight-forward but I don't think we want to collapse HUGETLB_PAGE and > HUGETLBFS just yet either. > That makes more sense, perhaps it's worth beating in to shape so there can also be non hugetlbfs users, this needs a bit of use-case thinking, though.
> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/Kconfig.cputype b/arch/powerpc/platforms/Kconfig.cputype > > index 0c3face..7c937ad 100644 > > --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/Kconfig.cputype > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/Kconfig.cputype > > @@ -1,5 +1,6 @@ > > config PPC64 > > bool "64-bit kernel" > > + select HAVE_HUGETLB_PAGE > > default n > > help > > This option selects whether a 32-bit or a 64-bit kernel > > hmm... This is what Kconfig is currently doing but by rights, it should be > set on a per-processor basis. I guess it's outside the scope of this patch as > there isn't an obvious way to tell what processor versions support huge pages. > Yes, I had the same thoughts, perhaps the PPC64 folks can shed some light on this.
| |