[lkml]   [2001]   [Sep]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 2.4.10pre13aa1
On Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 09:57:21AM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> Only in 2.4.10pre13aa1: 00_unmap-dirty-pte-1
> I grepped over the whole 600 pages of the latest x86 system developer
> manual and I couldn't find the proof that I'm wrong.
> We can have pagecache pages with pte writeable and non dirty at some
> point.
> Now what happens if the userspace task in the other cpu touches the
> writeable page between our "ptep_get_and_clear" and the
> "flush_tlb_page"? Is the resulting pte still zero and the task get into
> a page fault? Or as I am worried it could also just end with the pte
> with only the dirty bit set? Does somebody know for sure? I can
> imagine the cpu finding the tlb state writeable, and issuing just a
> locked bit test and set in the pte without caring to check if the pte
> is zero or not.
> If the cpu just set the bit this patch will avoid to lose a shared
> mapping update. Otherwise it's a safe noop so I keep it applied
> until this issue is sorted out.

I've tested this on all the machines I could get my hands on, and every
single CPU will take a page fault if the pte is not present on dirtying
the page. If people are truely paranoid, then make it a boot time assertion.

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 13:03    [W:0.069 / U:0.060 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site