Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: PTE access rules & abstraction | From | Benjamin Herrenschmidt <> | Date | Thu, 25 Sep 2008 11:04:46 +1000 |
| |
On Thu, 2008-09-25 at 00:55 +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote: > > Whyever not the latter? Jeremy seems to have gifted that to you, > for precisely such a purpose.
Yeah. Not that I don't quite understand what the point of the start/modify/commit thing the way it's currently used in mprotect since we are doing the whole transaction for a single PTE change, ie how does that help with hypervisors vs. a single ptep_modify_protection() for example is beyond me :-)
When I think about transactions, I think about starting a transaction, changing a -bunch- of PTEs, then commiting... Essentially I see the PTE lock thing as being a transaction.
Cheers, Ben.
> Hugh > > p.s. I surely agree with you over the name ptep_get_and_clear_full(): > horrid, even more confusing than the tlb->fullmm from which it derives > its name. I expect I'd agree with you over a lot more too, but > please, bugfixes first.
Sure.
| |