[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1303138924.9615.2487.camel@nimitz>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 08:02:04 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/3] track numbers of pagetable pages
On Sat, 2011-04-16 at 10:44 +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> > static inline void pgtable_page_dtor(struct mm_struct *mm, struct page *page)
> > {
> > pte_lock_deinit(page);
> > + dec_mm_counter(mm, MM_PTEPAGES);
> > dec_zone_page_state(page, NR_PAGETABLE);
> > }
>
> I'm probably missing something really obvious but...
>
> Is this safe in the non-USE_SPLIT_PTLOCKS case? If we're not using
> split-ptlocks then inc/dec_mm_counter() are only safe when done under
> mm->page_table_lock, right? But it looks to me like we can end up doing,
>
> __pte_alloc()
> pte_alloc_one()
> pgtable_page_ctor()
>
> before acquiring mm->page_table_lock in __pte_alloc().
No, it's probably not safe. We'll have to come up with something a bit
different in that case. Either that, or just kill the non-atomic case.
Surely there's some percpu magic counter somewhere in the kernel that is
optimized for fast (unlocked?) updates and rare, slow reads.
-- Dave
--
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