Re: Maybe a VM bug in 2.4.18-18 from RH 8.0?

William Lee Irwin III (wli@holomorphy.com)
Fri, 6 Dec 2002 18:09:10 -0800

On Sat, 2002-12-07 at 01:46, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>> It's an arch parameter, so they'd probably just
>> #define MMUPAGE_SIZE PAGE_SIZE
>> Hugh's original patch did that for all non-i386 arches.

On Sat, Dec 07, 2002 at 02:31:37AM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> These are low end x86 - but we could this based on
> <= i586
> i586
> i686+

It's relatively flexible as to the choice of PAGE_SIZE (it's
MMUPAGE_SIZE that's defined by hardware); about the only constraints
are that jacking it up where PAGE_SIZE spans pmd's breaks the core
vectoring API, PAGE_SIZE >= MMUPAGE_SIZE, both are powers of 2, the
vectors (which are of size MMUPAGE_COUNT*sizeof(pte_t *)) are stack-
allocated, and arch code has to understand small bits of it.

It sounds like we could pick sane defaults based on CPU revision.

Bill
-
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/