Re: page fault scalability patch V16 [3/4]: Drop page_table_lock in handle_mm_fault

From: Nick Piggin <>
Date: 2005-02-04 17:27:10
On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 14:09 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-02-01 at 18:49 -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Nick Piggin wrote:

> > I mean we could just speculatively copy, risk copying crap and
> > discard that later when we find that the pte has changed. This would
> > simplify the function:
> > 
> I think this may be the better approach. Anyone else?

Not to say it is perfect either. Normal semantics say not to touch
a page if it is not somehow pinned. So this may cause problems in
corner cases (DEBUG_PAGEALLOC comes to mind... hopefully nothing else).

But I think a plain read of the page when it isn't pinned is less
yucky than writing into the non-pinned struct page.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Received on Fri Feb 4 01:31:34 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-08-02 09:20:35 EST