On Mon, 19 Jun 2006, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> From: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
>
> mprotect() resets the page protections, which could result in extra write
> faults for those pages whos dirty state we track using write faults
> and are dirty already.
>
> @@ -43,7 +44,13 @@ static void change_pte_range(struct mm_s
> * bits by wiping the pte and then setting the new pte
> * into place.
> */
> - ptent = pte_modify(ptep_get_and_clear(mm, addr, pte), newprot);
> + ptent = ptep_get_and_clear(mm, addr, pte);
> + ptent = pte_modify(ptent, newprot);
> + /* Avoid taking write faults for pages we know to be
> + * dirty.
> + */
> + if (is_accountable && pte_dirty(ptent))
> + ptent = pte_mkwrite(ptent);
> set_pte_at(mm, addr, pte, ptent);
> lazy_mmu_prot_update(ptent);
Thanks for adding that comment, I completely misread this when you
first showed it to me, and didn't get the point at all. (But you're
a little too fond of "/* Multiline" comments: in this case, with no
blank line above, it'd look better with a "/*" lone line to separate
from the pte_modify code.)
Yes, I guess that is worth doing, though it's a bit sad and ugly:
goes right against the simplicity of working with vm_page_prot.
Could you change "is_accountable" to "dirty_accountable" throughout?
We've various different kinds of accounting going on hereabouts,
I think it'd be more understandable as "dirty_accountable".
Hugh
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
