From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 00:03:33 +0000 (GMT) From: Hugh Dickins Subject: Re: [RFC] Page table sharing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Daniel Phillips Cc: Linus Torvalds , dmccr@us.ibm.com, Kernel Mailing List , linux-mm@kvack.org, Robert Love , Rik van Riel , mingo@redhat.com, Andrew Morton , manfred@colorfullife.com, wli@holomorphy.com List-ID: On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote: > On February 18, 2002 08:04 pm, Hugh Dickins wrote: > > On Mon, 18 Feb 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote: > > > On February 18, 2002 09:09 am, Hugh Dickins wrote: > > > > Since copy_page_range would not copy shared page tables, I'm wrong to > > > > point there. But __pte_alloc does copy shared page tables (to unshare > > > > them), and needs them to be stable while it does so: so locking against > > > > swap_out really is required. It also needs locking against read faults, > > > > and they against each other: but there I imagine it's just a matter of > > > > dropping the write arg to __pte_alloc, going back to pte_alloc again. > > I'm not sure what you mean here, you're not suggesting we should unshare the > page table on read fault are you? I am. But I can understand that you'd prefer not to do it that way. Hugh -- 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/