Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 9 Sep 2008 15:53:06 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] xen: fix pinning when not using split pte locks |
| |
On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 15:43:25 -0700 Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org> wrote:
> We only pin PTE pages when using split PTE locks, so don't do the > pin/unpin when attaching/detaching pte pages to a pinned pagetable. > > Signed-off-by: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@citrix.com> > --- > arch/x86/xen/enlighten.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > =================================================================== > --- a/arch/x86/xen/enlighten.c > +++ b/arch/x86/xen/enlighten.c > @@ -864,7 +864,7 @@ > > if (!PageHighMem(page)) { > make_lowmem_page_readonly(__va(PFN_PHYS((unsigned long)pfn))); > - if (level == PT_PTE) > + if (level == PT_PTE && USE_SPLIT_PTLOCKS) > pin_pagetable_pfn(MMUEXT_PIN_L1_TABLE, pfn); > } else > /* make sure there are no stray mappings of > @@ -932,7 +932,7 @@ > > if (PagePinned(page)) { > if (!PageHighMem(page)) { > - if (level == PT_PTE) > + if (level == PT_PTE && USE_SPLIT_PTLOCKS) > pin_pagetable_pfn(MMUEXT_UNPIN_TABLE, pfn); > make_lowmem_page_readwrite(__va(PFN_PHYS(pfn))); > }
What are the effects of the bug which you fixed?
Do you consider this to be 2.6.27 material? 2.6.26.x? 2.6.25.x?
| |