[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090715092446.GB1863@linux-sh.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 18:24:46 +0900
From: Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
uclinux-dist-devel@...ckfin.uclinux.org,
Bernd Schmidt <bernds_cb1@...nline.de>,
Bryan Wu <cooloney@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] NOMMU: add support for Memory Protection Units (MPU)
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 06:22:06PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org> wrote:
>
> > Some architectures (like the Blackfin arch) implement some of the
> > "simpler" features that one would expect out of a MMU such as memory
> > protection. In our case, we actually get read/write/exec protection
> > down to the page boundary so processes can't stomp on each other let
> > alone the kernel. There is a performance decrease (which depends greatly
> > on the workload) however as the hardware/software interaction was not
> > optimized at design time.
>
> It occurs to me that I could probably test this on FRV by using the MMU in a
> limited way. How do you actually keep track of the protections applied? Do
> you have a single global page table that is managed by the mmap code on a
> per-VMA basis?
>
SH can do this as well for the single-address-space mode in the MMU, but
in that case I would still use a global page table.
--
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