Re: page table lock patch V15 [0/7]: overview

From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin_at_yahoo.com.au>
Date: 2005-01-13 11:10:08
Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005, Nick Piggin wrote:
> 
> 
>>Note that this was with my ptl removal patches. I can't see why Christoph's
>>would have _any_ extra overhead as they are, but it looks to me like they're
>>lacking in atomic ops. So I'd expect something similar for Christoph's when
>>they're properly atomic.
> 
> 
> Pointer operations and word size operations are atomic. So this is mostly
> okay.
> 
> The issue arises on architectures that have a large pte size than the
> wordsize. This is only on i386 PAE mode and S/390. S/390 falls back to
> the page table lock  for these operations. PAE mode should do the same and
> not use atomic ops if they cannot be made to work in a reasonable manner.
> 

Yep well you should be OK then. Your implementation has the advantage
that it only instantiates previously clear ptes... hmm, no I'm wrong,
your ptep_set_access_flags path modifies an existing pte. I think this
can cause subtle races in copy_page_range, and maybe other places,
can't it?

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Received on Wed Jan 12 19:13:01 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-08-02 09:20:34 EST