[lkml]   [2001]   [Feb]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: x86 ptep_get_and_clear question
    Kanoj Sarcar wrote:
    > > Is the sequence
    > > << lock;
    > > read pte
    > > pte |= dirty
    > > write pte
    > > >> end lock;
    > > or
    > > << lock;
    > > read pte
    > > if (!present(pte))
    > > do_page_fault();
    > > pte |= dirty
    > > write pte.
    > > >> end lock;
    > No, it is a little more complicated. You also have to include in the
    > tlb state into this algorithm. Since that is what we are talking about.
    > Specifically, what does the processor do when it has a tlb entry allowing
    > RW, the processor has only done reads using the translation, and the
    > in-memory pte is clear?

    Yes (no to the no): Manfred's pseudo-code is exactly the question you're
    asking. Because when the TLB entry is non-dirty and you do a write, we
    _know_ the processor will do a locked memory cycle to update the dirty
    bit. A locked memory cycle implies read-modify-write, not "write TLB
    entry + dirty" (which would be a plain write) or anything like that.

    Given you know it's a locked cycle, the only sensible design from Intel
    is going to be one of Manfred's scenarios.

    An interesting thought experiment though is this:

    << lock;
    read pte
    pte |= dirty
    write pte
    >> end lock;
    if (!present(pte))

    It would have a mighty odd effect wouldn't it?

    -- Jamie
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:15    [W:0.045 / U:1.308 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site