Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 19:02:13 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 19:02:03 -0500 Received: from bay-bridge.veritas.com ([143.127.3.10]:34523 "EHLO svldns02.veritas.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 19:01:49 -0500 Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 00:03:33 +0000 (GMT) From: Hugh Dickins To: Daniel Phillips cc: Linus Torvalds , dmccr@us.ibm.com, Kernel Mailing List , linux-mm@kvack.org, Robert Love , Rik van Riel , mingo@redhat.com, Andrew Morton , manfred@colorfullife.com, wli@holomorphy.com Subject: Re: [RFC] Page table sharing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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/