Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sun, 23 Sep 2001 11:46:18 +0200 | From | Manfred Spraul <> | Subject | Re: 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/
|  |