Re: x86 ptep_get_and_clear question

[Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>]

Jamie Lokier wrote:
> 
> Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > So the only case that ends up being fairly heavy may be a case that is
> > very uncommon in practice (only for unmapping shared mappings in
> > threaded programs or the lazy TLB case).
>
The lazy tlb case is quite fast: lazy tlb thread never write to user
space pages, we don't need to protect the dirty bits. And the first ipi
clears mm->cpu_vm_mask, only one ipi.
>
> I can think of one case where performance is considered quite important:
> mprotect() is used by several garbage collectors, including threaded
> ones.  Maybe mprotect() isn't the best primitive for those anyway, but
> it's what they have to work with atm.
>

Does mprotect() actually care for wrong dirty bits?
The race should be invisible to user space apps.

>>>>>>> mprotect()
for_all_affected_ptes() {
	lock andl ~PERMISSION_MASK, *pte;
	lock orl new_permission, *pte;
}
< now anther cpu could still write to the write protected pages
< and set the dirty bit, but who cares? Shouldn't be a problem.
flush_tlb_range().
< tlb flush before ending the syscall, user space can't notice
< the delay.
<<<<

--
	Manfred