Re: Populating multiple ptes at fault time

[Martin Schwidefsky]

On Thu, 2008-09-25 at 11:32 -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Very few places actually care about the state of the A/D bits; would it
> be expensive to make those places explicitly ask for synchronization
> before testing the bits (or alternatively, have an explicit query
> operation rather than just poking about in the ptes).  Martin, does this
> help with s390's per-page (vs per-pte) A/D state?

With the kvm support the situation on s390 recently has grown a tad more
complicated. We now have dirty bits in the per-page storage key and in
the pgste (page table entry extension) for the kvm guests. For the A/D
bits in the storage key the new pte operations won't help, for the kvm
related bits they could make a difference.

-- 
blue skies,
  Martin.

"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.


--
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/