From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 09:11:29 -0800 (PST) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: page table lock patch V15 [0/7]: overview In-Reply-To: <20050113031807.GA97340@muc.de> Message-ID: References: <41E4BCBE.2010001@yahoo.com.au> <20050112014235.7095dcf4.akpm@osdl.org> <20050112104326.69b99298.akpm@osdl.org> <41E5AFE6.6000509@yahoo.com.au> <20050112153033.6e2e4c6e.akpm@osdl.org> <41E5B7AD.40304@yahoo.com.au> <41E5BC60.3090309@yahoo.com.au> <20050113031807.GA97340@muc.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andi Kleen Cc: Nick Piggin , Andrew Morton , torvalds@osdl.org, hugh@veritas.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, benh@kernel.crashing.org List-ID: On Wed, 13 Jan 2005, Andi Kleen wrote: > Alternatively you can use a lazy load, checking for changes. > (untested) > > pte_t read_pte(volatile pte_t *pte) > { > pte_t n; > do { > n.pte_low = pte->pte_low; > rmb(); > n.pte_high = pte->pte_high; > rmb(); > } while (n.pte_low != pte->pte_low); > return pte; > } > > No atomic operations, I bet it's actually faster than the cmpxchg8. > There is a small risk for livelock, but not much worse than with an > ordinary spinlock. Hmm.... This may replace the get of a 64 bit value. But here could still be another process that is setting the pte in a non-atomic way. > Not that I get it what you want it for exactly - the content > of the pte could change any time when you don't hold page_table_lock, right? The content of the pte can change anytime the page_table_lock is held and it may change from cleared to a value through a cmpxchg while the lock is not held. -- 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: aart@kvack.org