* vmtruncate question
@ 2000-07-12 1:53 Andrew Morton
2000-07-14 10:18 ` Stephen C. Tweedie
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Morton @ 2000-07-12 1:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-mm
The flushes which surround the second call to zap_page_range()
would appear to be flushing more memory than is to be
zapped. Is this correct, or should it be:
--- memory.c.orig Wed Jul 12 11:49:08 2000
+++ memory.c Wed Jul 12 11:49:31 2000
@@ -980,9 +980,9 @@
partial_clear(mpnt, start);
start = (start + ~PAGE_MASK) & PAGE_MASK;
}
- flush_cache_range(mm, start, end);
+ flush_cache_range(mm, start, start + len);
zap_page_range(mm, start, len);
- flush_tlb_range(mm, start, end);
+ flush_tlb_range(mm, start, start + len);
} while ((mpnt = mpnt->vm_next_share) != NULL);
out_unlock:
spin_unlock(&mapping->i_shared_lock);
--
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/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: vmtruncate question
2000-07-12 1:53 vmtruncate question Andrew Morton
@ 2000-07-14 10:18 ` Stephen C. Tweedie
2000-07-14 12:57 ` Andrew Morton
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Stephen C. Tweedie @ 2000-07-14 10:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Morton; +Cc: linux-mm
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 12, 2000 at 01:53:44AM +0000, Andrew Morton wrote:
> The flushes which surround the second call to zap_page_range()
> would appear to be flushing more memory than is to be
> zapped. Is this correct, or should it be:
Yes, I noticed that too: I think you're right.
--Stephen
--
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/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: vmtruncate question
2000-07-14 10:18 ` Stephen C. Tweedie
@ 2000-07-14 12:57 ` Andrew Morton
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Morton @ 2000-07-14 12:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stephen C. Tweedie; +Cc: linux-mm
"Stephen C. Tweedie" wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2000 at 01:53:44AM +0000, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > The flushes which surround the second call to zap_page_range()
> > would appear to be flushing more memory than is to be
> > zapped. Is this correct, or should it be:
>
> Yes, I noticed that too: I think you're right.
OK, thanks. I'll implement this in the changes which are part of the
low-lat patch and send it off to LT tonight. If he says "no
low-latency" then I'll make sure this issue isn't forgotten about.
--
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/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2000-07-14 12:57 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2000-07-12 1:53 vmtruncate question Andrew Morton
2000-07-14 10:18 ` Stephen C. Tweedie
2000-07-14 12:57 ` Andrew Morton
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox