On January 29, 2002 02:29 am, Oliver Xymoron wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jan 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:
>
> > copy_page_range
> > Intead of copying the page tables, just increment their use counts
> >
> > zap_page_range:
> > If a page table is shared according to its use count, just decrement
> > the use count and otherwise leave it alone.
> >
> > handle_mm_fault:
> > If a page table is shared according to its use count and the faulting
> > instruction is a write, allocate a new page table and do the work that
> > would have normally been done by copy_page_range at fork time.
> > Decrement the use count of the (perhaps formerly) shared page table.
>
> Somewhere in here, the pages have got to all be marked read-only or
> something.
Yes, that's an essential detail I omitted: when a page table's use count
transitions from 1 to 2, mark all the CoW pages on the page table RO.
> If they're not, then either parent or child writing to
> non-faulting addresses will be writing to shared memory.
Yes, and after all, the whole point is to generalize CoW of pages to include
instantiation of page tables.
> I think something more is needed, such as creating a minimal page table
> for the child process with read-only mappings to the current %EIP and %EBP
> pages in it. This gets us past the fork/exec hurdle. Without the exec, we
> copy over chunks when they're accessed as above in handle_mm_fault. But
> you can't actually _share_ the page tables without marking the pages
> themselves readonly.
Oh yes, it's what I intended, thanks. Um, and I think you just told me what
one of my bugs is.
-- Daniel - 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 Jan 31 2002 - 21:00:56 EST