Re: PTE access rules & abstraction
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Date: 2008-09-25 21:48:23
Also in:
lkml
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Date: 2008-09-25 21:48:23
Also in:
lkml
On Thu, 2008-09-25 at 11:15 -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
The ptep_modify_prot_start/commit pair specifies a single pte update in such a way to allow more implementation flexibility - ie, there's no naked requirement for an atomic fetch-and-clear operation. I chose the transaction-like terminology to emphasize that the start/commit functions must be strictly paired; there's no way to fail or abort the "transaction". A whole group of those start/commit pairs can be batched together without affecting their semantics.
I still can't see the point of having now 3 functions instead of just one such as ptep_modify_protection(). I don't see what it buys you other than adding gratuituous new interfaces. Ben;. -- 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-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>