From: Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>
To: Kanoj Sarcar <kanoj@google.engr.sgi.com>
Cc: Jamie Lokier <lk@tantalophile.demon.co.uk>,
Ben LaHaise <bcrl@redhat.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, mingo@redhat.com, alan@redhat.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: x86 ptep_get_and_clear question
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 19:51:59 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3A8C254F.17334682@colorfullife.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200102151823.KAA00802@google.engr.sgi.com>
Kanoj Sarcar wrote:
>
> Okay, I will quote from Intel Architecture Software Developer's Manual
> Volume 3: System Programming Guide (1997 print), section 3.7, page 3-27:
>
> "Bus cycles to the page directory and page tables in memory are performed
> only when the TLBs do not contain the translation information for a
> requested page."
>
> And on the same page:
>
> "Whenever a page directory or page table entry is changed (including when
> the present flag is set to zero), the operating system must immediately
> invalidate the corresponding entry in the TLB so that it can be updated
> the next time the entry is referenced."
>
But there is another paragraph that mentions that an OS may use lazy tlb
shootdowns.
[search for shootdown]
You check the far too obvious chapters, remember that Intel wrote the
documentation ;-)
I searched for 'dirty' though Vol 3 and found
Chapter 7.1.2.1 Automatic locking.
.. the processor uses locked cycles to set the accessed and dirty flag
in the page-directory and page-table entries.
But that obviously doesn't answer your question.
Is the sequence
<< lock;
read pte
pte |= dirty
write pte
>> end lock;
or
<< lock;
read pte
if (!present(pte))
do_page_fault();
pte |= dirty
write pte.
>> end lock;
--
Manfred
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>
To: Kanoj Sarcar <kanoj@google.engr.sgi.com>
Cc: Jamie Lokier <lk@tantalophile.demon.co.uk>,
Ben LaHaise <bcrl@redhat.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, mingo@redhat.com, alan@redhat.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: x86 ptep_get_and_clear question
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 19:51:59 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3A8C254F.17334682@colorfullife.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 200102151823.KAA00802@google.engr.sgi.com
Kanoj Sarcar wrote:
>
> Okay, I will quote from Intel Architecture Software Developer's Manual
> Volume 3: System Programming Guide (1997 print), section 3.7, page 3-27:
>
> "Bus cycles to the page directory and page tables in memory are performed
> only when the TLBs do not contain the translation information for a
> requested page."
>
> And on the same page:
>
> "Whenever a page directory or page table entry is changed (including when
> the present flag is set to zero), the operating system must immediately
> invalidate the corresponding entry in the TLB so that it can be updated
> the next time the entry is referenced."
>
But there is another paragraph that mentions that an OS may use lazy tlb
shootdowns.
[search for shootdown]
You check the far too obvious chapters, remember that Intel wrote the
documentation ;-)
I searched for 'dirty' though Vol 3 and found
Chapter 7.1.2.1 Automatic locking.
.. the processor uses locked cycles to set the accessed and dirty flag
in the page-directory and page-table entries.
But that obviously doesn't answer your question.
Is the sequence
<< lock;
read pte
pte |= dirty
write pte
>> end lock;
or
<< lock;
read pte
if (!present(pte))
do_page_fault();
pte |= dirty
write pte.
>> end lock;
--
Manfred
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux.eu.org/Linux-MM/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-02-15 18:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 62+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-02-15 1:50 x86 ptep_get_and_clear question Kanoj Sarcar
2001-02-15 2:13 ` Ben LaHaise
2001-02-15 2:37 ` Kanoj Sarcar
2001-02-15 10:55 ` Jamie Lokier
2001-02-15 16:06 ` Ben LaHaise
2001-02-15 16:35 ` Jamie Lokier
2001-02-15 17:23 ` Kanoj Sarcar
2001-02-15 17:27 ` Ben LaHaise
2001-02-15 17:38 ` Kanoj Sarcar
2001-02-15 17:46 ` Ben LaHaise
2001-02-15 17:47 ` Jamie Lokier
2001-02-15 17:47 ` Jamie Lokier
2001-02-15 18:05 ` Kanoj Sarcar
2001-02-15 18:05 ` Kanoj Sarcar
2001-02-15 18:23 ` Kanoj Sarcar
2001-02-15 18:23 ` Kanoj Sarcar
2001-02-15 18:42 ` Jamie Lokier
2001-02-15 18:42 ` Jamie Lokier
2001-02-15 18:57 ` Kanoj Sarcar
2001-02-15 18:57 ` Kanoj Sarcar
2001-02-15 19:06 ` Ben LaHaise
2001-02-15 19:06 ` Ben LaHaise
2001-02-15 19:19 ` Kanoj Sarcar
2001-02-15 19:19 ` Kanoj Sarcar
2001-02-15 20:16 ` Linus Torvalds
2001-02-15 18:51 ` Manfred Spraul [this message]
2001-02-15 18:51 ` Manfred Spraul
2001-02-15 19:05 ` Kanoj Sarcar
2001-02-15 19:05 ` Kanoj Sarcar
2001-02-15 19:19 ` Jamie Lokier
2001-02-15 19:19 ` Jamie Lokier
2001-02-15 20:31 ` Linus Torvalds
2001-02-15 21:26 ` Manfred Spraul
2001-02-15 21:29 ` Manfred Spraul
2001-02-16 1:21 ` Linus Torvalds
2001-02-16 14:18 ` Jamie Lokier
2001-02-16 14:59 ` Manfred Spraul
2001-02-16 15:27 ` Jamie Lokier
2001-02-16 15:54 ` Manfred Spraul
2001-02-16 16:00 ` Jamie Lokier
2001-02-16 16:23 ` Manfred Spraul
2001-02-16 16:43 ` Jamie Lokier
2001-02-16 17:12 ` Manfred Spraul
2001-02-16 17:20 ` Jamie Lokier
2001-02-16 17:36 ` Linus Torvalds
2001-02-16 18:49 ` Manfred Spraul
2001-02-16 19:00 ` Linus Torvalds
2001-02-16 19:02 ` Ben LaHaise
2001-02-16 19:32 ` Linus Torvalds
2001-02-16 19:42 ` Ben LaHaise
2001-02-16 17:37 ` Jamie Lokier
2001-02-16 18:04 ` Manfred Spraul
2001-02-16 18:09 ` Jamie Lokier
2001-02-16 18:36 ` Hugh Dickins
2001-02-16 17:29 ` Ben LaHaise
2001-02-16 17:38 ` Linus Torvalds
2001-02-16 17:44 ` Ben LaHaise
2001-02-16 17:59 ` Linus Torvalds
2001-02-15 23:57 ` Jamie Lokier
2001-02-16 0:55 ` Linus Torvalds
2001-02-15 19:07 ` Jamie Lokier
2001-02-15 19:07 ` Jamie Lokier
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3A8C254F.17334682@colorfullife.com \
--to=manfred@colorfullife.com \
--cc=alan@redhat.com \
--cc=bcrl@redhat.com \
--cc=kanoj@google.engr.sgi.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=lk@tantalophile.demon.co.uk \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.