lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [May]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: Make 2.5.17 TLB even more friendlier
It seems to me that there is a race in this code in zap_pte_range,
because there is a gap between when we read the pte and when we clear
it:

for (offset=0; offset < size; ptep++, offset += PAGE_SIZE) {
pte_t pte = *ptep;
if (pte_none(pte))
continue;
if (pte_present(pte)) {
unsigned long pfn = pte_pfn(pte);

pte_clear(ptep);

Isn't it possible that another cpu could set the dirty bit in the pte
between the "pte = *ptep" and the "pte_clear(ptep)"? In my case
another cpu could also set the "has hash-table entry" bit.

Shouldn't we do this as "pte = ptep_get_and_clear(ptep)", at least in
the case where we are unmapping stuff?

Paul.
-
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 13:26    [W:1.004 / U:0.124 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site