[lkml]   [2002]   [Feb]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC] Page table sharing
On February 19, 2002 01:22 pm, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > On February 19, 2002 04:22 am, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > That still leaves the TLB invalidation issue, but we could handle that
> > > with an alternate approach: use the same "free_pte_ctx" kind of gathering
> > > that the zap_page_range() code uses for similar reasons (ie gather up the
> > > pte entries that you're going to free first, and then do a global
> > > invalidate later).
> >
> > I think I'll fall back to unsharing the page table on swapout as Hugh
> > suggested, until we sort this out.
> My proposal was to unshare the page table on read fault, to avoid race.
> I suppose you could, just for your current testing, use that technique
> in swapout, to avoid the much more serious TLB issue that Linus has now
> raised. But don't do so without realizing that it is a very deadlocky
> idea for swapout (making pages freeable) to need to allocate pages.

I didn't fail to notice that. It's no worse than any other page reservation
issue, of which we have plenty. One day we're going to have to solve them all.

> And it's not much use for swapout to skip them either, since the shared
> page tables become valuable on the very large address spaces which we'd
> want swapout to be hitting.

Unsharing is the route of least resistance at the moment. If necessary I can
keep a page around for that purpose, then reestablish that reserve after using

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 13:18    [W:0.072 / U:5.412 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site