Re: page table lock patch V15 [0/7]: overview

From: Nick Piggin
Date: Wed Jan 12 2005 - 19:58:08 EST


Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005, Nick Piggin wrote:


Pointer operations and word size operations are atomic. So this is mostly
okay.

The issue arises on architectures that have a large pte size than the
wordsize. This is only on i386 PAE mode and S/390. S/390 falls back to
the page table lock for these operations. PAE mode should do the same and
not use atomic ops if they cannot be made to work in a reasonable manner.


Yep well you should be OK then. Your implementation has the advantage
that it only instantiates previously clear ptes... hmm, no I'm wrong,
your ptep_set_access_flags path modifies an existing pte. I think this
can cause subtle races in copy_page_range, and maybe other places,
can't it?


ptep_set_access_flags is only used after acquiring the page_table_lock and
does not clear a pte. That is safe. The only critical thing is if a pte
would be cleared while holding the page_table_lock. That used to occur in
the swapper code but we modified that.


I mean what used to be the ptep_set_access_flags path. Where you are
now modifying a pte without the ptl. However after a second look, it
seems like that won't be a problem.

There is still an issue as Hugh rightly observed. One cannot rely on a
read of a pte/pud/pmd being atomic if the pte is > word size. This occurs
for all higher levels in handle_mm_fault. Thus we would need to either
acuire the page_table_lock for some architectures or provide primitives
get_pgd, get_pud etc that take the page_table_lock on PAE mode. ARGH.


Yes I know. I would say that having arch-definable accessors for the
page tables wouldn't be a bad idea anyway, and the flexibility may
come in handy for other things.

It would be a big, annoying patch though :(

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/