From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <001701c30c9f$dc8ae790$020120b0@jockeXP> From: "Joakim Tjernlund" To: Cc: "Linuxppc-Dev@Lists. Linuxppc. Org" References: <3EA94CB4.8050509@embeddededge.com> <16043.7040.957962.917725@nanango.paulus.ozlabs.org> Subject: Re: _PAGE_HWWRITE missing in pte_mkdirty()? Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 11:31:58 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: > Joakim Tjernlund writes: > > > OK, I wasn't aware that you can have dirty pages without _PAGE_RW. > > Yes, think about what happens if a process has a writable dirty page > (in a private or anonymous mapping) and the process does a fork. The > page becomes copy-on-write, so we have to make it non-writable, but it > is still dirty. Yes, that makes sense. Thanks. > Whether the kernel actually ever calls pte_mkdirty on a non-writable > page is a different question, of course. :) I don't think the kernel calls pte_mkdirty in this case. I tried it on my mpc862 system and it worked fine. I was just trying to avoid DTLB errors. Jocke PS. Could comment on my previous post about cacheable_memcpy() as well? http://lists.linuxppc.org/linuxppc-dev/200304/msg00057.html ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/