LKML Archive on
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Hugh Dickins <>
To: Martin Schwidefsky <>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <>,,
Subject: Re: [patch 5/5] Optimize page_mkclean_one
Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2007 09:54:45 +0100 (BST)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1183274153.15924.6.camel@localhost>

On Sun, 1 Jul 2007, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
> > 
> > Expect you're right, but I _really_ don't want to comment, when I don't
> > understand that "|| pte_write" in the first place, and don't know the
> > consequence of pte_dirty && !pte_write or !pte_dirty && pte_write there.
> The pte_write() part is for the shared dirty page tracking. If you want
> to make sure that a max of x% of your pages are dirty then you cannot
> allow to have more than x% to be writable. Thats why page_mkclean_one
> clears the dirty bit and makes the page read-only.

The whole of page_mkclean_one is for the dirty page tracking: so it's
obvious why it tests pte_dirty, but not obvious why it tests pte_write.

> > My suspicion is that the "|| pte_write" is precisely to cover your
> > s390 case where pte is never dirty (it may even have been me who got
> > Peter to put it in for that reason).  In which case your patch would
> > be fine - though I think it'd be improved a lot by a comment or
> > rearrangement or new macro in place of the pte_dirty || pte_write
> > line (perhaps adjust my pte_maybe_dirty in asm-generic/pgtable.h,
> > and use that - its former use in msync has gone away now).
> No, s390 is covered by the page_test_dirty / page_clear_dirty pair in
> page_mkclean. 

That's where its dirty page count comes from, yes: but since the s390
pte_dirty just says no, if page_mkclean_one tested only pte_dirty,
then it wouldn't do anything on s390, and in particular wouldn't
write protect the ptes to re-enforce dirty counting from then on.

So in answering your denials, I grow more confident that the pte_write
test is precisely for the s390 case.  Though it might also be to cover
some defect in the write-protection scheme on other arches.

Come to think of it, would your patch really make any difference?
Although page_mkclean's "count" of dirty ptes on s390 will be nonsense,
that count would anyway be unknown, and it's only used as a boolean;
and now I don't think your patch changes the boolean value - if any
pte is found writable (and if the scheme is working) that implies
that the page was written to, and so should give the same answer
as the page_test_dirty.

But I could easily be overlooking something: Peter will recall.


  reply	other threads:[~2007-07-01  8:55 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-06-29 13:55 [patch 0/5] Various mm improvements Martin Schwidefsky
2007-06-29 13:55 ` [patch 1/5] avoid tlb gather restarts Martin Schwidefsky
2007-06-29 18:56   ` Hugh Dickins
2007-06-29 21:19     ` Martin Schwidefsky
2007-06-30 13:16       ` Hugh Dickins
2007-06-29 13:55 ` [patch 2/5] remove ptep_establish Martin Schwidefsky
2007-06-29 13:55 ` [patch 3/5] remove ptep_test_and_clear_dirty and ptep_clear_flush_dirty Martin Schwidefsky
2007-07-03  1:29   ` Zachary Amsden
2007-07-03  7:26     ` Martin Schwidefsky
2007-06-29 13:55 ` [patch 4/5] move mm_struct and vm_area_struct Martin Schwidefsky
2007-06-29 13:55 ` [patch 5/5] Optimize page_mkclean_one Martin Schwidefsky
2007-06-30 14:04   ` Hugh Dickins
2007-07-01  7:15     ` Martin Schwidefsky
2007-07-01  8:54       ` Hugh Dickins [this message]
2007-07-01 13:27         ` Peter Zijlstra
2007-07-02  7:07           ` Martin Schwidefsky
2007-07-01 19:50         ` Martin Schwidefsky
2007-07-01 10:29   ` Miklos Szeredi

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: [patch 5/5] Optimize page_mkclean_one' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).