On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 12:11:57AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
quoted text
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 02:58:51PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 09:43:57AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > anything when changing the pte to be _more_ permissive, and I don't
> > 
> > Note that in my patch the invalidate_pages in mprotect can be
> > trivially switched to a mprotect_pages with proper params. This will
> > prevent page faults completely in the secondary MMU (there will only
> > be tlb misses after the tlb flush just like for the core linux pte),
> > and it'll allow all the secondary MMU pte blocks (512/1024 at time
> > with my PT lock design) to be updated to have proper permissions
> > matching the core linux pte.
> 
> Sorry, I realise I still didn't get this through my head yet (and also
> have not seen your patch recently). So I don't know exactly what you
> are doing...
> 
> But why does _anybody_ (why does Christoph's patches) need to invalidate
> when they are going to be more permissive? This should be done lazily by
> the driver, I would have thought.

I don't believe it should, but it probably does right now.  I do know
the case where a write fault where there is no need for a COW does
not call out on the PTE change.  I see no reason the others should not
handle this as well.  Just off the top of my head, I can only think of
the mprotect case needing to special case the more permissive state and
I don't think that changes PTEs at all, merely updates the VMA.

Thanks,
Robin
--
unsubscribe notice
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/