From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 17:35:47 +0100 From: Jamie Lokier Subject: Re: x86 ptep_get_and_clear question Message-ID: <20010215173547.A2079@pcep-jamie.cern.ch> References: <20010215115536.A1257@pcep-jamie.cern.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: ; from bcrl@redhat.com on Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 11:06:25AM -0500 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Ben LaHaise Cc: Kanoj Sarcar , linux-mm@kvack.org, mingo@redhat.com, alan@redhat.com List-ID: Ben LaHaise wrote: > > Processor 2 has recently done some writes, so the dirty bit is set in > > processor 2's TLB. > > > > Processor 1 clears the dirty bit atomically. > > > > Processor 2 does some more writes, and does not check the page table > > because the page is already dirty in its TLB. > > > > Result: The later writes on processor 2 do not mark the page dirty. > > Yeah, but the tlb is flushed in those cases (look for flush_tlb_page in > try_to_swap_out). As long as processor 1 waits for the flush on processor 2 to complete before marking the struct page dirty, that looks fine to me. -- Jamie -- 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.eu.org/Linux-MM/