On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On February 18, 2002 08:04 pm, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 Feb 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > > On February 18, 2002 09:09 am, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > > > Since copy_page_range would not copy shared page tables, I'm wrong to
> > > > point there. But __pte_alloc does copy shared page tables (to unshare
> > > > them), and needs them to be stable while it does so: so locking against
> > > > swap_out really is required. It also needs locking against read faults,
> > > > and they against each other: but there I imagine it's just a matter of
> > > > dropping the write arg to __pte_alloc, going back to pte_alloc again.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean here, you're not suggesting we should unshare the
> page table on read fault are you?
I am. But I can understand that you'd prefer not to do it that way.
Hugh
-
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 : Sat Feb 23 2002 - 21:00:17 EST