[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1222424787.22679.17.camel@localhost>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 12:26:27 +0200
From: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
Hugh Dickens <hugh@...itas.com>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: Populating multiple ptes at fault time
On Thu, 2008-09-25 at 11:32 -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Very few places actually care about the state of the A/D bits; would it
> be expensive to make those places explicitly ask for synchronization
> before testing the bits (or alternatively, have an explicit query
> operation rather than just poking about in the ptes). Martin, does this
> help with s390's per-page (vs per-pte) A/D state?
With the kvm support the situation on s390 recently has grown a tad more
complicated. We now have dirty bits in the per-page storage key and in
the pgste (page table entry extension) for the kvm guests. For the A/D
bits in the storage key the new pte operations won't help, for the kvm
related bits they could make a difference.
--
blue skies,
Martin.
"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.
--
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