[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RFC] Page table sharing
- To: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>,Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com>
- Subject: Re: [RFC] Page table sharing
- From: Daniel Phillips <phillips@bonn-fries.net>
- Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 15:18:30 +0100
- Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br>, dmccr@us.ibm.com,Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,linux-mm@kvack.org, Robert Love <rml@tech9.net>, mingo@redhat.com,Andrew Morton <akpm@zip.com.au>, manfred@colorfullife.com,wli@holomorphy.com
- Fake-Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org
- In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0202191801430.15103-100000@localhost.localdomain>
- Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mm-archive@humbolt.geo.uu.nl
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0202191801430.15103-100000@localhost.localdomain>
- Sender: Rik van Riel <riel@nl.linux.org>
On February 19, 2002 07:11 pm, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > > >
> > > > At that point you might as well make the TLB shootdown global (ie you keep
> > > > track of a mask of CPU's whose TLB's you want to kill, and any pmd that
> > > > has count > 1 just makes that mask be "all CPU's").
> > >
> > > How do we know when to do the global tlb flush?
> >
> > See above.
> >
> > Basically, the algorithm is:
> >
> > invalidate_cpu_mask = 0;
> >
> > .. for each page swapped out ..
> >
> > pte = ptep_get_and_clear(ptep);
> > save_pte_and_mm(pte_page(pte));
> > mask = mm->cpu_vm_mask;
> > if (page_count(pmd_page) > 1)
> > mask = ~0UL;
> > invalidate_cpu_mask |= mask;
> >
> > and then at the end you just do
> >
> > flush_tlb_cpus(invalidate_cpu_mask);
> > for_each_page_saved() {
> > free_page(page);
> > }
> >
> > (yeah, yeah, add cache coherency etc).
>
> It's a little worse than this, I think. Propagating pte_dirty(pte) to
> set_page_dirty(page) cannot be done until after the flush_tlb_cpus,
You mean, because somebody might re-dirty an already cleaned page? Or are
you driving at something more subtle?
> if the ptes are writable: and copy_page_range is not setting "cow", so not
> write protecting, when it's a shared writable mapping. Easy answer is
> to scrap "cow" there and always do the write protection; but I doubt
> that's the correct answer.
Nope. For shared mmaps you'd get tons of unecessary faults.
> swap_out could keep an array of pointers to
> ptes, to propagate dirty after flushing TLB and before freeing pages,
> but that's not very pretty.
It's not horrible, not worse than the already-existing tlb_remove_page
code anyway. I think we're not stopped here, just slowed down for some
head scratching.
--
Daniel
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/