lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [May]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/3] mm: tracking shared dirty pages
From
Date
On Thu, 2006-05-25 at 09:21 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Thu, 25 May 2006, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > @@ -1446,12 +1447,13 @@ static int do_wp_page(struct mm_struct *
> >
> > - if (unlikely(vma->vm_flags & VM_SHARED)) {
> > + if (vma->vm_flags & VM_SHARED) {
>
> You add this unlikely later again it seems. Why remove in the first place?

I'm not sure I follow you, are you suggesting that we'll find the
condition to be unlikely still, even with most of the shared mappings
trapping this branch?

> > +static int page_mkclean_one(struct page *page, struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> > + entry = pte_mkclean(pte_wrprotect(*pte));
> > + ptep_establish(vma, address, pte, entry);
>
> > + update_mmu_cache(vma, address, entry);
>
> You only changed protections on an estisting pte and ptep_establish
> already flushed the tlb. No need to call update_mmu_cache. See how
> change_protection() in mm/mprotect.c does it.

OK, will check.

> > + lazy_mmu_prot_update(entry);
>
> Needed.

-
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: 2006-05-25 19:02    [W:0.077 / U:18.692 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site