Messages in this thread | | | From | Daniel Phillips <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] Page table sharing | Date | Tue, 19 Feb 2002 01:27:42 +0100 |
| |
On February 19, 2002 01:03 am, Hugh Dickins wrote: > On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote: > > On February 18, 2002 08:04 pm, Hugh Dickins wrote: > > > On Mon, 18 Feb 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote: > > > > On February 18, 2002 09:09 am, Hugh Dickins wrote: > > > > > Since copy_page_range would not copy shared page tables, I'm wrong to > > > > > point there. But __pte_alloc does copy shared page tables (to unshare > > > > > them), and needs them to be stable while it does so: so locking against > > > > > swap_out really is required. It also needs locking against read faults, > > > > > and they against each other: but there I imagine it's just a matter of > > > > > dropping the write arg to __pte_alloc, going back to pte_alloc again. > > > > I'm not sure what you mean here, you're not suggesting we should unshare the > > page table on read fault are you? > > I am. But I can understand that you'd prefer not to do it that way. > Hugh
No, that's not nearly studly enough ;-)
Since we have gone to all the trouble of sharing the page table, we should swap in/out for all sharers at the same time. That is, keep it shared, saving memory and cpu.
Now I finally see what you were driving at: before, we could count on the mm->page_table_lock for exclusion on read fault, now we can't, at least not when ptb->count is great than one[1]. So let's come up with something nice as a substitute, any suggestions?
[1] I think that's a big, broad hint.
-- Daniel - 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/
| |