Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 09:53:33 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 09:53:24 -0500 Received: from dsl-213-023-038-089.arcor-ip.net ([213.23.38.89]:34977 "EHLO starship.berlin") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 09:53:10 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Daniel Phillips To: Hugh Dickins Subject: Re: [RFC] Page table sharing Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 15:57:37 +0100 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.2] Cc: Linus Torvalds , Rik van Riel , dmccr@us.ibm.com, Kernel Mailing List , linux-mm@kvack.org, Robert Love , mingo@redhat.com, Andrew Morton , manfred@colorfullife.com, wli@holomorphy.com In-Reply-To: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Message-Id: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On February 20, 2002 03:38 pm, Hugh Dickins wrote: > On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote: > > > > Looking at the current try_to_swap_out code I see only a local invalidate, > > flush_tlb_page(vma, address), why is that? How do we know that this mm could > > not be in context on another cpu? > > I made the same mistake a few months ago: not noticing #ifndef CONFIG_SMP > in the header. arch/i386/kernel/smp.c has the real i386 flush_tlb_page(). OK, well if I'm making the same mistakes then I'm likely on the right track ;) So it seems that what we need for tlb invalidate of shared page tables is not worse than what we already have, though there's some extra bookkeeping to handle. Why would we run into your page dirty propagation problem with shared page tables and not with the current code? -- 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/