[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49D37E21.2000609@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 10:45:53 -0400
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
CC: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.osdl.org, frankeh@...son.ibm.com,
akpm@...l.org, nickpiggin@...oo.com.au, hugh@...itas.com
Subject: Re: [patch 4/6] Guest page hinting: writable page table entries.
Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 09:25:34 -0400
> Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com> wrote:
>
>> Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
>>
>> This code has me stumped. Does it mean that if a page already
>> has the PageWritable bit set (and count_ok stays 0), we will
>> always mark the page as volatile?
>>
>> How does that work out on !s390?
>
> No, we will not always mark the page as volatile. If PG_writable is
> already set count_ok will stay 0 and a call to page_make_volatile is
> done. This differs from page_set_volatile as it repeats all the
> required checks, then calls page_set_volatile with a PageWritable(page)
> as second argument. What state the page will get depends on the
> architecture definition of page_set_volatile. For s390 this will do a
> state transition to potentially volatile as the PG_writable bit is set.
> On architecture that cannot check the dirty bit on a physical page basis
> you need to make the page stable.
Good point. I guess that means patch 4/6 checks out right, then :)
Acked-by: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
--
All rights reversed.
--
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