[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0612271639510.4473@woody.osdl.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 16:42:40 -0800 (PST)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>
To: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Martin Michlmayr <tbm@...ius.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Andrei Popa <andrei.popa@...eo.ro>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Florian Weimer <fw@...eb.enyo.de>,
Marc Haber <mh+linux-kernel@...schlus.de>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd.bergmann@...ibm.com>,
gordonfarquharson@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: fix page_mkclean_one (was: 2.6.19 file content
corruption on ext3)
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
>
> For s390 there are two aspects to consider:
> 1) the pte values are 100% software controlled.
That's fine. In that situation, you shouldn't need any atomic ops at all,
I think all our sw page-table operations are already done under the pte
lock.
The reason x86 needs to be careful is exactly the fact that the hardware
will obviously do a lot on its own, and the hardware is _not_ going to
honor our page table locking ;)
In an all-sw situation, a lot of this should be easier. S390 has _other_
things that are inconvenient (the strange "dirty bit is not in the page
tables" thing that makes it look different from everybody else), but hey,
it's a balance..
So for s390, ptep_exchange() in my example should be able to be a simple
"load old value and store new one", assuming everybody honors the pte lock
(and they _should_).
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists