[lkml]   [2002]   [Feb]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC] Page table sharing

On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> Somebody might read fault, changing an entry when we're in the middle of
> copying it and might might do a duplicated read fault.

You're confusing the mm->mmap_sem with the page_table_lock.

The mm semaphore is really a read-write semaphore, and yes, there can be
multiple faulters active at the same time readin gin pages.

But the page_table_lock is 100% exclusive, and while you hold the
page_table_lock there is absolutely _not_ going to be any concurrent page

(NOTE! Sure, there might be another mm that has the same pmd shared, but
that one is going to do an unshare before it actually touches anything in
the pmd, so it's NOT going to change the values in the original pmd).

So I'm personally convinced that the locking shouldn't be needed at all,
if you just make sure that you do things in the right order (that, of
course, might need some memory barriers, which had better be implied by
the atomic dec-and-test anyway).


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 13:24    [W:0.067 / U:1.108 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site