aboutsummaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/arch/sparc64/mm/hugetlbpage.c
AgeCommit message (Collapse)Author
2007-03-12[SPARC64]: Add missing HPAGE_MASK masks on address parameters.David S. Miller
These pte loops all assume the passed in address is HPAGE aligned, make sure that is actually true. Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2006-12-07[PATCH] shared page table for hugetlb pageChen, Kenneth W
Following up with the work on shared page table done by Dave McCracken. This set of patch target shared page table for hugetlb memory only. The shared page table is particular useful in the situation of large number of independent processes sharing large shared memory segments. In the normal page case, the amount of memory saved from process' page table is quite significant. For hugetlb, the saving on page table memory is not the primary objective (as hugetlb itself already cuts down page table overhead significantly), instead, the purpose of using shared page table on hugetlb is to allow faster TLB refill and smaller cache pollution upon TLB miss. With PT sharing, pte entries are shared among hundreds of processes, the cache consumption used by all the page table is smaller and in return, application gets much higher cache hit ratio. One other effect is that cache hit ratio with hardware page walker hitting on pte in cache will be higher and this helps to reduce tlb miss latency. These two effects contribute to higher application performance. Signed-off-by: Ken Chen <kenneth.w.chen@intel.com> Acked-by: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com> Cc: Dave McCracken <dmccr@us.ibm.com> Cc: William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com> Cc: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com> Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org> Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> Cc: David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> Cc: Adam Litke <agl@us.ibm.com> Cc: Paul Mundt <lethal@linux-sh.org> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2006-06-30Remove obsolete #include <linux/config.h>Jörn Engel
Signed-off-by: Jörn Engel <joern@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de> Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>
2006-03-31[SPARC64]: Align address in huge_pte_alloc().David S. Miller
We are about to fill in all HPAGE_SIZE's worth of PAGE_SIZE ptes, so we have to give the first pte in that set else we scribble over random memory when we fill in the ptes. Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2006-03-22Merge master.kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/davem/sparc-2.6Linus Torvalds
* master.kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/davem/sparc-2.6: [SPARC64]: Add a secondary TSB for hugepage mappings. [SPARC]: Respect vm_page_prot in io_remap_page_range().
2006-03-22[PATCH] hugepage: is_aligned_hugepage_range() cleanupDavid Gibson
Quite a long time back, prepare_hugepage_range() replaced is_aligned_hugepage_range() as the callback from mm/mmap.c to arch code to verify if an address range is suitable for a hugepage mapping. is_aligned_hugepage_range() stuck around, but only to implement prepare_hugepage_range() on archs which didn't implement their own. Most archs (everything except ia64 and powerpc) used the same implementation of is_aligned_hugepage_range(). On powerpc, which implements its own prepare_hugepage_range(), the custom version was never used. In addition, "is_aligned_hugepage_range()" was a bad name, because it suggests it returns true iff the given range is a good hugepage range, whereas in fact it returns 0-or-error (so the sense is reversed). This patch cleans up by abolishing is_aligned_hugepage_range(). Instead prepare_hugepage_range() is defined directly. Most archs use the default version, which simply checks the given region is aligned to the size of a hugepage. ia64 and powerpc define custom versions. The ia64 one simply checks that the range is in the correct address space region in addition to being suitably aligned. The powerpc version (just as previously) checks for suitable addresses, and if necessary performs low-level MMU frobbing to set up new areas for use by hugepages. No libhugetlbfs testsuite regressions on ppc64 (POWER5 LPAR). Signed-off-by: David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> Signed-off-by: Zhang Yanmin <yanmin.zhang@intel.com> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net> Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org> Cc: William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2006-03-22[SPARC64]: Add a secondary TSB for hugepage mappings.David S. Miller
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2006-03-20[SPARC64]: Fix 2 bugs in huge page support.David S. Miller
1) huge_pte_offset() did not check the page table hierarchy elements as being empty correctly, resulting in an OOPS 2) Need platform specific hugetlb_get_unmapped_area() to handle the top-down vs. bottom-up address space allocation strategies. Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2005-06-21[PATCH] Hugepage consolidationDavid Gibson
A lot of the code in arch/*/mm/hugetlbpage.c is quite similar. This patch attempts to consolidate a lot of the code across the arch's, putting the combined version in mm/hugetlb.c. There are a couple of uglyish hacks in order to covert all the hugepage archs, but the result is a very large reduction in the total amount of code. It also means things like hugepage lazy allocation could be implemented in one place, instead of six. Tested, at least a little, on ppc64, i386 and x86_64. Notes: - this patch changes the meaning of set_huge_pte() to be more analagous to set_pte() - does SH4 need s special huge_ptep_get_and_clear()?? Acked-by: William Lee Irwin <wli@holomorphy.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2005-04-16Linux-2.6.12-rc2Linus Torvalds
Initial git repository build. I'm not bothering with the full history, even though we have it. We can create a separate "historical" git archive of that later if we want to, and in the meantime it's about 3.2GB when imported into git - space that would just make the early git days unnecessarily complicated, when we don't have a lot of good infrastructure for it. Let it rip!