On Tue, 2005-02-01 at 09:37 -0600, Chris Friesen wrote: > Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > On Mon, 2005-01-31 at 18:15 -0600, Chris Friesen wrote: > > >>Is there any particular reason why modules should not be allowed to > >>flush the tlb, or is this an oversight? > > > > can you point at the url to your module source? I suspect modules doing > > tlb flushes is the wrong thing, but without seeing the source it's hard > > to tell. > > I've included the relevent code at the bottom. The module will be > released under the GPL. > > I've got a module that I'm porting forward from 2.4. The basic idea is > that we want to be able to track pages dirtied by an application. The > system has no swap, so we use the dirty bit to get this information. On > demand we walk the page tables belonging to the process, store the > addresses of any dirty ones, flush the tlb, and mark them clean.
afaik one doesn't need to do a tlb flush in code that clears the dirty bit, as long as you use the proper vm functions to do so. (if those need a tlb flush, those are supposed to do that for you afaik). Also note that your code isn't dealing with 4 level pagetables.... And pagetable walking in drivers is basically almost always a mistake and a sign that something is wrong. - 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/
