On Thu, 2008-01-17 at 16:29 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Do we need `offset' at all?
Looks like no.
I wonder if there's a good argument for adding a pte_offset_val() which
would let us do:
pteval = pte_offset_val(pmd, addr);
and shrink the map/unmap window and overhead here and possibly
elsewhere?
Anyway, updated but still untested patch now with revealing comment:
diff -r 5595adaea70f fs/proc/task_mmu.c
--- a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c Thu Jan 17 13:26:54 2008 -0600
+++ b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c Thu Jan 17 18:45:57 2008 -0600
@@ -584,18 +585,19 @@
pte_t *pte;
int err = 0;
- pte = pte_offset_map(pmd, addr);
- for (; addr != end; pte++, addr += PAGE_SIZE) {
+ for (; addr != end; addr += PAGE_SIZE) {
u64 pfn = PM_NOT_PRESENT;
+ pte = pte_offset_map(pmd, addr);
if (is_swap_pte(*pte))
pfn = swap_pte_to_pagemap_entry(*pte);
else if (pte_present(*pte))
pfn = pte_pfn(*pte);
+ /* unmap so we're not in atomic when we copy to userspace */
+ pte_unmap(pte);
err = add_to_pagemap(addr, pfn, pm);
if (err)
return err;
}
- pte_unmap(pte - 1);
cond_resched();
--
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
