[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1222304686.8277.136.camel@pasglop>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 11:04:46 +1000
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>
Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: PTE access rules & abstraction
On Thu, 2008-09-25 at 00:55 +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote:
>
> Whyever not the latter? Jeremy seems to have gifted that to you,
> for precisely such a purpose.
Yeah. Not that I don't quite understand what the point of the
start/modify/commit thing the way it's currently used in mprotect since
we are doing the whole transaction for a single PTE change, ie how does
that help with hypervisors vs. a single ptep_modify_protection() for
example is beyond me :-)
When I think about transactions, I think about starting a transaction,
changing a -bunch- of PTEs, then commiting... Essentially I see the PTE
lock thing as being a transaction.
Cheers,
Ben.
> Hugh
>
> p.s. I surely agree with you over the name ptep_get_and_clear_full():
> horrid, even more confusing than the tlb->fullmm from which it derives
> its name. I expect I'd agree with you over a lot more too, but
> please, bugfixes first.
Sure.
--
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