| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-devel
[Xen-devel] Re: Question about x86/mm/gup.c's use of disabled interrupts
Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
Disabling the interrupt will prevent the tlb flush IPI from coming
in and flushing this cpu's tlb, but I don't see how it will prevent
some other cpu from actually updating the pte in the pagetable,
which is what we're concerned about here.
The thread that cleared the pte holds the pte lock and is now waiting
for the IPI. The thread that wants to update the pte will wait for
the pte lock, thus also waits on the IPI and gup_fast()'s
local_irq_enable(). I think.
But hasn't it already done the pte update at that point?
(I think this conversation really is moot because the kernel never
does P->P pte updates any more; its always P->N->P.)
I thought you were concerned about cpu 0 doing a gup_fast(), cpu 1 doing
P->N, and cpu 2 doing N->P. In this case cpu 2 is waiting on the pte lock.
Is this the only reason to disable interrupts?
Another comment says it also prevents pagetable teardown.
We could take a reference to the mm to get the same effect, no?
Won't stop munmap().
--
I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
signature is too narrow to contain.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
|
|
| |
|
Home