[lkml]   [2006]   [Sep]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC] page fault retry with NOPAGE_RETRY

> I need to re-read your mail and Andrew as at this point, I don't quite
> see why we need that args and/or that current->flags bit instead of
> always returning all the way to userland and let the faulting
> instruction happen again (which means you don't block in the kernel, can
> take signals etc... thus do you actually need to prevent multiple
> retries ?)

Actually... I can see it's faster to not return all the way and take the
fault again ... though only in some cases. For example, if the pte has
been filled in the meantime (concurrent faults) it's actually faster to
just go back. The only reason I see why you need those args is to tell
the no_page() handler wether retrying is acceptable or wether it should
use the old way. Any reason why this is necessary at all ? What are you
trying to avoid by not letting it always do the retry path ?

My thinking was something around the lines of no_page() always does the
retry logic. Then, we do something like:

handle_pte_fault() gets modified. If do_no_page() returns
VM_FAULT_RETRY, it checks pte_present() again. If the PTE is present, it
returns VM_FAULT_MINOR. If PTE is absent, it checks for signals, and
returns VM_FAULT_MINOR if a signal is pending. If PTE is absent and no
signals are pending, it returns VM_FAULT_RETRY.

In addition, we still need to modify all archs do_page_fault() to handle

Or is there a specific scenario you are trying to avoid by keeping this
mecanism for preventing retries ?


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: 2006-09-20 02:09    [W:0.064 / U:2.916 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site