Manfred Spraul wrote:
> Is the sequence
> << lock;
> read pte
> pte |= dirty
> write pte
> >> end lock;
> or
> << lock;
> read pte
> if (!present(pte))
> do_page_fault();
> pte |= dirty
> write pte.
> >> end lock;
or more generally
<< lock;
read pte
if (!present(pte) || !writable(pte))
do_page_fault();
pte |= dirty
write pte.
>> end lock;
Not to mention, does it guarantee to use the newly read physical
address, does it check the superviser permission again, does it use the
new PAT/CD/WT attributes?
I can vaguely imagine some COW optimisation where the pte is updated to
be writable with the new page's address, and there is no need to flush
other processor TLBs because they will do so when they first write to
the page. (But of course you have to be careful synchronising with
other uses of the shared page prior to the eventual TLB flush).
-- Jamie
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 15 2001 - 21:00:27 EST