Re: __virt_addr_valid vs virtual percpu areas

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge]

Jiri Slaby wrote:
> It's not (in the meaning of virt_* functions), but while booting we 
> don't have variables used in VMALLOC_START and VMALLOC_END ready for 
> use on i386.
>
> Maybe we can introduce more clever method/state which would say: hey, 
> vmalloc framework is up and running. And use instead (system_state != 
> SYSTEM_BOOTING) hack.

Yeah, I pieced that together.  I'm just testing a patch with a specific 
__vmalloc_start_set flag to test.

> > This is biting me because I need to translate percpu addresses
> > to pfns, but I only bother doing the full pagetable walk if
> > virt_addr_valid() is false (otherwise I just use __pa()).
>
> Do you need to bother also with vmalloc space?

percpu data gets mapped into the vmalloc region now (when using 4k page 
mappings, at least).

> > Removing this test doesn't seem to harm anything at first glance. Is
> > this OK to do in general (and can we quietly set fire to system_state
> > while we're about it)?
>
> I wouldn't do that, since vmalloc addr is not virt addr, again in the 
> meaning of virt_* functions. And the function wouldn't do the right 
> thing, at least in the RUNNING state anymore.

OK.

   J
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/