From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 11:57:26 -0500 From: Dave McCracken Subject: Re: [PATCH] Snapshot of shared page tables Message-ID: <83240000.1033577846@baldur.austin.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: References: <45850000.1033570655@baldur.austin.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Daniel Phillips , Linux Memory Management , Linux Kernel List-ID: --On Wednesday, October 02, 2002 18:51:41 +0200 Daniel Phillips wrote: > Interesting, you substituted pte_page_lock(ptepage) for > mm->page_table_lock. Could you wax poetic about that, please? Sure. If a pte page is shared, the mm->page_table_lock is not sufficient to protect the rest of the page fault. Therefore we need a lock at the pte page level. The mm->page_table_lock is held during the page fault until we have a valid and locked pte page we're working on, then it's dropped for the rest of the fault. Feel free to poke holes in my logic, but I think it's the right locking model for shared pte pages. Dave McCracken ====================================================================== Dave McCracken IBM Linux Base Kernel Team 1-512-838-3059 dmccr@us.ibm.com T/L 678-3059 -- 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/