On 12/03/2013 02:01 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> So do you think the patch I sent is wrong? Why?
>
> I think the TLB shootdown should guarantee that it's ok on other
> CPU's, since that's basically what we do on mmap.
>
I think that is true for other CPUs; however, there are definitely CPUs
out there (which Linux supports) for which you have to synchronize the I
and D sides "manually" after writing code through memory, at least
through the CPU. That is at least one reason why MIPS has a
cacheflush() system call, for example.
> But looking closer at this, I think I see why the old code did what it
> did. I think it's breaking shared mmap pages on purpose rather than
> dirtying them. Which is probably the right thing to do.
>
In other words, treating them as MAP_PRIVATE? Wouldn't it be better to
throw an error if we can't honor the semantics of the mapping that we
are using?
-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
