Christoph Rohland writes:
> Or the ARM one? (The basic principle of shm was always the same and
> this could have been noticed when the ARM pte handling was designed.)
ARM pte handling has not changed since 2.3.0. I think you overlooked
the way the ARM handles its ptes. ;(
2.2.xx works perfectly and does not have this exact same pte crud in it.
Instead it does a pte_clear of a pte on the kernel stack, which just
happens to be safe (since stack pointer - 1024 pointers will just about
miss the task structure).
> I think we should simply allocate the indirect blocks with pte_alloc
> in chunks like we do it now with kmalloc. In 2.5 the shm code should
> definitely integrated into the page cache.
>
> I will work out a patch beginning of next week. I just now have no
> access to the current kernel sources.
Hmm, do we need larger vmalloc areas? Already, one of the ARM architectures
has up to 512MB bytes of vmalloc area rather than the conventional 256MB
limit.
_____
|_____| ------------------------------------------------- ---+---+-
| | Russell King rmk@arm.linux.org.uk --- ---
| | | | http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/~rmk/aboutme.html / / |
| +-+-+ --- -+-
/ | THE developer of ARM Linux |+| /|\
/ | | | --- |
+-+-+ ------------------------------------------------- /\\\ |
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 31 2000 - 21:00:14 EST