quoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
Roman Zippel writes:
On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, David Edelsohn wrote:
quoted
We really need to get more IBM PowerPC and kernel VMM experts
involved to explore the best design given the Linux kernel's abstractions
and limitations in the VMM space.
Roman> There is certainly room for improvement, but slowly I'd really like to
Roman> know why the Linux vmm should be/is the limiting part?
I did not say that Linux VMM is the limiting part, I said that the
design needs to work within the Linux VMM limitations. The Linux VMM
still uses the x86 page table design as a basis for its abstraction
layer. Not all processors match that configuration.
David
** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
Hi,
On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, David Edelsohn wrote:
I did not say that Linux VMM is the limiting part, I said that the
design needs to work within the Linux VMM limitations. The Linux VMM
still uses the x86 page table design as a basis for its abstraction
layer. Not all processors match that configuration.
The page table abstraction is only used for user space vm management. The
important point is: it's only an abstraction as far as it concerns the
general vm code. What happens underneath is a complete different story and
the general code should provide enough hooks to allow the implementation
to do whatever it wishes. If something is missing it can certainly be
added, but always remember not to mix abstraction with implementation.
Anyway, an idea to improve current context handling: define another bit
_PAGE_HASHED for the pte. If it's set, it points to the hash table entry,
otherwise it's a normal linux pte entry. That makes pte handling a bit
more complicated, but if we can dump the current tlb/context handling, it
should be really worth it.
bye, Roman
** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/