[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130725070719.GB27992@moon>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 11:07:19 +0400
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>,
Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Save soft-dirty bits on swapped pages
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 12:40:22PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> Hmm. So there are at least three kinds of memory:
>
> Anonymous pages: soft-dirty works
> Shared file-backed pages: soft-dirty does not work
> Private file-backed pages: soft-dirty works (but see below)
>
> Perhaps another bit should be allocated to expose to userspace either
> "soft-dirty", "soft-clean", or "soft-dirty unsupported"?
> There's another possible issue with private file-backed pages, though:
> how do you distinguish clean-and-not-cowed from cowed-but-soft-clean?
> (The former will reflect changes in the underlying file, I think, but
> the latter won't.)
When fault happens with cow allocation (on write) the pte get soft dirty
bit set (the code uses pte_mkdirty(entry) in __do_fault) and until we
explicitly clean the bit it remains set. Or you mean something else?
--
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