Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 02 Oct 2002 11:57:26 -0500 | From | Dave McCracken <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Snapshot of shared page tables |
| |
--On Wednesday, October 02, 2002 18:51:41 +0200 Daniel Phillips <phillips@arcor.de> wrote:
> Interesting, you substituted pte_page_lock(ptepage) for > mm->page_table_lock. Could you wax poetic about that, please?
Sure. If a pte page is shared, the mm->page_table_lock is not sufficient to protect the rest of the page fault. Therefore we need a lock at the pte page level. The mm->page_table_lock is held during the page fault until we have a valid and locked pte page we're working on, then it's dropped for the rest of the fault.
Feel free to poke holes in my logic, but I think it's the right locking model for shared pte pages.
Dave McCracken
====================================================================== Dave McCracken IBM Linux Base Kernel Team 1-512-838-3059 dmccr@us.ibm.com T/L 678-3059
- 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/
| |