From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <4689A691.9090908@vmware.com> Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2007 18:29:53 -0700 From: Zachary Amsden MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [patch 3/5] remove ptep_test_and_clear_dirty and ptep_clear_flush_dirty. References: <20070629135530.912094590@de.ibm.com> <20070629141528.060235678@de.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <20070629141528.060235678@de.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Martin Schwidefsky Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Hugh Dickins List-ID: Martin Schwidefsky wrote: > From: Martin Schwidefsky > > Nobody is using ptep_test_and_clear_dirty and ptep_clear_flush_dirty. > Remove the functions from all architectures. > > > -static inline int > -ptep_test_and_clear_dirty (struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long addr, pte_t *ptep) > -{ > -#ifdef CONFIG_SMP > - if (!pte_dirty(*ptep)) > - return 0; > - return test_and_clear_bit(_PAGE_D_BIT, ptep); > -#else > - pte_t pte = *ptep; > - if (!pte_dirty(pte)) > - return 0; > - set_pte_at(vma->vm_mm, addr, ptep, pte_mkclean(pte)); > - return 1; > -#endif > -} I've not followed all the changes lately - what is the current protocol for clearing dirty bit? Is it simply pte_clear followed by set or is it not done at all? At least for i386 and virtualization, we had several optimizations to the test_and_clear path that are not possible with a pte_clear / set_pte approach. Zach -- 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/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org