Messages in this thread Patch in this message |  | | | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | | Date | Mon, 19 Jun 2006 19:53:47 +0200 | | Subject | [PATCH 6/6] mm: remove some update_mmu_cache() calls |
| |
From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>
This may be a bit controversial but it does not seem to make sense to use the update_mmu_cache macro when we reuse the page. We are only fiddling around with the protections, the dirty and accessed bits.
With the call to update_mmu_cache the way of using the macros would be different from mprotect() and page_mkclean(). I'd rather have everything work the same way. If this breaks on some arches then also mprotect and page_mkclean() are broken. The use of mprotect() is rare, we may have breakage in some arches that we just have not seen yet.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> --- mm/memory.c | 2 -- 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) Index: 2.6-mm/mm/memory.c =================================================================== --- 2.6-mm.orig/mm/memory.c 2006-06-19 16:21:16.000000000 +0200 +++ 2.6-mm/mm/memory.c 2006-06-19 16:21:25.000000000 +0200 @@ -1514,7 +1514,6 @@ static int do_wp_page(struct mm_struct * entry = pte_mkyoung(orig_pte); entry = maybe_mkwrite(pte_mkdirty(entry), vma); ptep_set_access_flags(vma, address, page_table, entry, 1); - update_mmu_cache(vma, address, entry); lazy_mmu_prot_update(entry); ret |= VM_FAULT_WRITE; goto unlock; @@ -2317,7 +2316,6 @@ static inline int handle_pte_fault(struc entry = pte_mkyoung(entry); if (!pte_same(old_entry, entry)) { ptep_set_access_flags(vma, address, pte, entry, write_access); - update_mmu_cache(vma, address, entry); lazy_mmu_prot_update(entry); } else { /* - 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/
|  |