Re: [PATCH 4/4] add ksm kernel shared memory driver.

Izik Eidus
2009-04-16T00:59:40Z

Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> +static pte_t *get_pte(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr)
>>> +{
>>> + pgd_t *pgd;
>>> + pud_t *pud;
>>> + pmd_t *pmd;
>>> + pte_t *ptep = NULL;
>>> +
>>> + pgd = pgd_offset(mm, addr);
>>> + if (!pgd_present(*pgd))
>>> + goto out;
>>> +
>>> + pud = pud_offset(pgd, addr);
>>> + if (!pud_present(*pud))
>>> + goto out;
>>> +
>>> + pmd = pmd_offset(pud, addr);
>>> + if (!pmd_present(*pmd))
>>> + goto out;
>>> +
>>> + ptep = pte_offset_map(pmd, addr);
>>> +out:
>>> + return ptep;
>>> +}
>>>
>>
>> hm, this looks very generic. Does it duplicate anything which core
>> kernel already provides? If not, perhaps core kernel should provide
>> this (perhaps after some reorganisation).
>>
>
> It is lookup_address() which works on user addresses, and as such is
> very useful.

But ksm need the pgd offset of an mm struct, not the kernel pgd, so
maybe changing it to get the pgd offset would be nice..

Another thing it is just for x86 right now, so probably it need to go
out to the common code

> But it would need to deal with returning a level so it can deal with
> large pages in usermode, and have some well-defined semantics on
> whether the caller is responsible for unmapping the returned thing
> (ie, only if its a pte).
>
> I implemented this myself a couple of months ago, but I can't find it
> anywhere...
>
>>> +static int memcmp_pages(struct page *page1, struct page *page2)
>>> +{
>>> + char *addr1, *addr2;
>>> + int r;
>>> +
>>> + addr1 = kmap_atomic(page1, KM_USER0);
>>> + addr2 = kmap_atomic(page2, KM_USER1);
>>> + r = memcmp(addr1, addr2, PAGE_SIZE);
>>> + kunmap_atomic(addr1, KM_USER0);
>>> + kunmap_atomic(addr2, KM_USER1);
>>> + return r;
>>> +}
>>>
>>
>> I wonder if this code all does enough cpu cache flushing to be able to
>> guarantee that it's looking at valid data. Not my area, and presumably
>> not an issue on x86.
>>
>
> Shouldn't that be kmap_atomic's job anyway? Otherwise it would be
> hard to use on any virtual-tag/indexed cache machine.
>
> J