lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-04-03 07:55    [W:0.074 / U:0.240 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site