Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/3] mm: tracking shared dirty pages | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Date | Thu, 25 May 2006 19:00:20 +0200 |
| |
On Thu, 2006-05-25 at 09:21 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Thu, 25 May 2006, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > @@ -1446,12 +1447,13 @@ static int do_wp_page(struct mm_struct * > > > > - if (unlikely(vma->vm_flags & VM_SHARED)) { > > + if (vma->vm_flags & VM_SHARED) { > > You add this unlikely later again it seems. Why remove in the first place?
I'm not sure I follow you, are you suggesting that we'll find the condition to be unlikely still, even with most of the shared mappings trapping this branch?
> > +static int page_mkclean_one(struct page *page, struct vm_area_struct *vma) > > + entry = pte_mkclean(pte_wrprotect(*pte)); > > + ptep_establish(vma, address, pte, entry); > > > + update_mmu_cache(vma, address, entry); > > You only changed protections on an estisting pte and ptep_establish > already flushed the tlb. No need to call update_mmu_cache. See how > change_protection() in mm/mprotect.c does it.
OK, will check.
> > + lazy_mmu_prot_update(entry); > > Needed.
- 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/
| |