Re: page fault scalability patch V16 [3/4]: Drop page_table_lock

Nick Piggin
2005-02-04T06:27:10Z

On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 14:09 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-02-01 at 18:49 -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Nick Piggin wrote:

> > I mean we could just speculatively copy, risk copying crap and
> > discard that later when we find that the pte has changed. This would
> > simplify the function:
> >
>
> I think this may be the better approach. Anyone else?
>

Not to say it is perfect either. Normal semantics say not to touch
a page if it is not somehow pinned. So this may cause problems in
corner cases (DEBUG_PAGEALLOC comes to mind... hopefully nothing else).

But I think a plain read of the page when it isn't pinned is less
yucky than writing into the non-pinned struct page.