On Wed, 20 Dec 2006, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-12-18 at 12:14 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > OR:
> >
> > - page_mkclean_one() is simply buggy.
>
> GOLD!
Ok. I was looking at that, and I wondered..
However, if that works, then I _think_ the correct sequence is the
following..
The rule should be:
- we flush the tlb _after_ we have cleared it, but _before_ we insert the
new entry.
But I dunno. These things are damn subtle. Does this patch fix it for you?
I actually suspect we should do this as an arch-specific macro, and
totally replace the current "ptep_clear_flush_dirty()" with one that does
"ptep_clear_flush_dirty_and_set_wp()".
Because what I'd _really_ prefer to do on x86 (and probably on most other
sane architectures) is to do
- atomically replace the pte with the EXACT SAME ONE, but one that
has the writable bit clear.
bit_clear(_PAGE_BIT_RW, &(ptep)->pte_low);
- flush the TLB, making sure that all CPU's will no longer write to it:
flush_tlb_page(vma, address);
- finally, just fetch-and-clear the dirty bit (and since it's no longer
writable, nobody should be settign it any more)
ret = bit_clear(__PAGE_BIT_DIRTY, &(ptep)->pte_low);
and now we should be all done.
But the "ptep_get_and_clear() + flush_tlb_page()" sequence should
hopefully also work.
Pls test.
Linus
----
diff --git a/mm/rmap.c b/mm/rmap.c
index d8a842a..eec8706 100644
--- a/mm/rmap.c
+++ b/mm/rmap.c
@@ -448,9 +448,10 @@ static int page_mkclean_one(struct page *page, struct
vm_area_struct *vma)
goto unlock;
entry = ptep_get_and_clear(mm, address, pte);
+ flush_tlb_page(vma, address);
entry = pte_mkclean(entry);
entry = pte_wrprotect(entry);
- ptep_establish(vma, address, pte, entry);
+ set_pte_at(mm, address, pte, entry);
lazy_mmu_prot_update(entry);
ret = 1;
-
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/
