![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
In article <Pine.LNX.4.21.0103181122480.13050-100000@imladris.rielhome.conectiva>, Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br> wrote: >OK, I'll write some code to prevent multiple threads from >stepping all over each other when they pagefault at the >same address. > >What would be the preferred method of fixing this ? > >- fixing do_swap_page and all ->nopage functions There is no need to fix gthe "nopage" functions. They never see the page table directly anyway. So the only thing that _should_ be needed is to make sure that do_no_page(), do_swap_page() and do_anonymous_page() will re-aquire the mm->page_table_lock and undo their work if it turns out that the page table entry is no longer empty.. (do_wp_page() should already be ok in this regard - it already does this exactly because present pagetable entries can already race with kswapd. What we're adding is that _nonpresent_ page table entries can race with multiple invocations of concurrent page faults) >- hacking handle_mm_fault to make sure no overlapping > pagefaults will be served at the same time No. The whole reason the rw_semaphores were done in the first place was to allow page faults to happen concurrently to allow threaded applictions to scale up even when faulting. Linus - 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/ | ||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 13:29 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||