lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Sep]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 2.4.10pre13aa1
 >> 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.
>

I don't think that this is a valid argument:
you are testing on i386 and make design decisions for the architecture
independant part.

I'd prefer ptep_get_and_clear_and_flush(), then the arch part can do
what's needed to get the final pte value. (if a single page is modified,
otherwise the arch can define a suitable mmu_gather)

--
Manfred



-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:03    [W:0.049 / U:9.064 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site