[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <53572AAA.4070207@zytor.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 19:51:22 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: Why do we set _PAGE_DIRTY for page tables?
On 04/22/2014 07:48 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 4:35 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
>> I just noticed this:
>>
>> #define _PAGE_TABLE (_PAGE_PRESENT | _PAGE_RW | _PAGE_USER | \
>> _PAGE_ACCESSED | _PAGE_DIRTY)
>> #define _KERNPG_TABLE (_PAGE_PRESENT | _PAGE_RW | _PAGE_ACCESSED | \
>> _PAGE_DIRTY)
>>
>> Is there a reason we set _PAGE_DIRTY for page tables? It has no
>> function, but doesn't do any harm either (the dirty bit is ignored for
>> page tables)... it just looks funny to me.
>
> I think it just got copied, and at least the A bit does matter even in
> page tables (well, it gets updated, I don't know how much that
> "matters"). So the fact that D is ignored is actually the odd man out.
>
Yes, not setting the A bit means the hardware will take an assist to set
the bit for us, which is a waste of time if we don't care about it. The
D bit is the one which made me wonder; I thought either it was just copy
& paste, or that it got set to make it more analogous with large pages.
-hpa
--
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