login
Header Space

 
 

Re: [git head] X86_PAT & mprotect

Score:
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...>
Cc: Venki Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@...>, Frans Pop <elendil@...>, Jesse Barnes <jesse.barnes@...>, <linux-kernel@...>, Packard, Keith <keith.packard@...>, Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...>, Hugh Dickins <hugh@...>, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...>, <suresh.b.siddha@...>
Date: Wednesday, May 7, 2008 - 6:36 pm

On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 09:02:17AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:

I did check that with _PAGE_PROT_PRESERVE_BITS defined to zero,
compiler optimizes vm_get_page_prot_preserve to generate same code as
vm_get_page_prot with no function call (on x86 64). So, things should be OK
from overhead perspective. But, from the code cleanliness aspect,
PRESERVE_BITS looks unclean and needs some cleanup. The reason I posted the
patch as is, was to get the confirmation on the original thread, whether this
indeed fixes those PAT related error messages.
 

Probably other architectures does not depend on preserving things in
vma->vm_page_prot once ptes are set correctly. With PAT, we use
vm_page_prot to keep track of PAT attributes for vmas from parent to
child across fork.

pte_modify() part will be required in all archs that wants to preserve
some bits in pte in a mprotect call.

Thanks,
Venki

--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?, Frans Pop, (Fri May 2, 3:22 pm)
RE: [git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?, Pallipadi, Venkatesh, (Fri May 2, 3:37 pm)
Re: [git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?, Jesse Barnes, (Fri May 2, 4:40 pm)
Re: [git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?, Jesse Barnes, (Mon May 5, 11:57 am)
Re: [git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?, Venki Pallipadi, (Tue May 6, 6:42 pm)
Re: [git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?, Frans Pop, (Sun May 25, 11:08 am)
Re: [git head] X86_PAT &amp; mprotect, Ingo Molnar, (Wed May 7, 3:02 am)
Re: [git head] X86_PAT & mprotect, Venki Pallipadi, (Wed May 7, 6:36 pm)
Re: [git head] X86_PAT &amp; mprotect, Hugh Dickins, (Wed May 7, 3:18 pm)
Re: [git head] X86_PAT &amp; mprotect, Venki Pallipadi, (Wed May 7, 7:23 pm)
Re: [git head] X86_PAT &amp; mprotect, Ingo Molnar, (Fri May 9, 6:08 am)
Re: [git head] X86_PAT &amp; mprotect, Venki Pallipadi, (Fri May 9, 4:05 pm)
Re: [git head] X86_PAT &amp; mprotect, Dave Airlie, (Fri May 9, 6:11 pm)
Re: [git head] X86_PAT &amp; mprotect, Keith Packard, (Sat May 10, 1:45 am)
RE: [git head] X86_PAT &amp; mprotect, Pallipadi, Venkatesh, (Fri May 9, 6:20 pm)
Re: [git head] X86_PAT &amp; mprotect, Dave Airlie, (Sat May 10, 2:19 am)
Re: [git head] X86_PAT &amp; mprotect, Keith Packard, (Sat May 10, 2:29 am)
Re: [git head] X86_PAT &amp; mprotect, Venki Pallipadi, (Fri May 9, 4:09 pm)
Re: [git head] X86_PAT &amp; mprotect, Hugh Dickins, (Fri May 9, 4:48 pm)
Re: [git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?, Jesse Barnes, (Mon May 5, 1:45 pm)
Re: fb layer &amp; ioremap_wc, Jesse Barnes, (Mon May 5, 3:04 pm)
Re: fb layer &amp; ioremap_wc, Frans Pop, (Fri Jun 13, 12:42 pm)
RE: [git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?, Pallipadi, Venkatesh, (Mon May 5, 1:59 pm)
RE: [git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?, Pallipadi, Venkatesh, (Mon May 5, 1:00 pm)
Re: [git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?, Ingo Molnar, (Sun May 4, 5:04 am)
RE: [git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?, Pallipadi, Venkatesh, (Fri May 2, 5:55 pm)
Re: [git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?, Jesse Barnes, (Fri May 2, 6:07 pm)
speck-geostationary