Displaying 16 results from an estimated 16 matches for "__dirty".
2007 Apr 18
0
[PATCH 4/9] 00mm5 combine flush accessed dirty.patch
...(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long addr, pte_t *ptep)
-{
- if (!pte_young(*ptep))
- return 0;
- return test_and_clear_bit(_PAGE_BIT_ACCESSED, &ptep->pte_low);
-}
+
+#define __HAVE_ARCH_PTEP_CLEAR_DIRTY_FLUSH
+#define ptep_clear_flush_dirty(vma, address, ptep) \
+({ \
+ int __dirty; \
+ __dirty = pte_dirty(*(ptep)); \
+ if (__dirty) { \
+ clear_bit(_PAGE_BIT_DIRTY, &(ptep)->pte_low); \
+ flush_tlb_page(vma, address); \
+ } \
+ __dirty; \
+})
+
+#define __HAVE_ARCH_PTEP_CLEAR_YOUNG_FLUSH
+#define ptep_clear_flush_young(vma, address, pt...
2007 Apr 18
0
[PATCH 4/5] Fix bad mmu names.patch
...do { \
if (dirty) { \
(ptep)->pte_low = (entry).pte_low; \
- pte_update_defer((vma)->vm_mm, (addr), (ptep)); \
+ pte_update_defer((vma)->vm_mm, (address), (ptep)); \
flush_tlb_page(vma, address); \
} \
} while (0)
@@ -305,7 +305,7 @@ do { \
__dirty = pte_dirty(*(ptep)); \
if (__dirty) { \
clear_bit(_PAGE_BIT_DIRTY, &(ptep)->pte_low); \
- pte_update_defer((vma)->vm_mm, (addr), (ptep)); \
+ pte_update_defer((vma)->vm_mm, (address), (ptep)); \
flush_tlb_page(vma, address); \
} \
__dirty; \
@...
2007 Apr 18
0
[PATCH 4/5] Fix bad mmu names.patch
...do { \
if (dirty) { \
(ptep)->pte_low = (entry).pte_low; \
- pte_update_defer((vma)->vm_mm, (addr), (ptep)); \
+ pte_update_defer((vma)->vm_mm, (address), (ptep)); \
flush_tlb_page(vma, address); \
} \
} while (0)
@@ -305,7 +305,7 @@ do { \
__dirty = pte_dirty(*(ptep)); \
if (__dirty) { \
clear_bit(_PAGE_BIT_DIRTY, &(ptep)->pte_low); \
- pte_update_defer((vma)->vm_mm, (addr), (ptep)); \
+ pte_update_defer((vma)->vm_mm, (address), (ptep)); \
flush_tlb_page(vma, address); \
} \
__dirty; \
@...
2007 Apr 18
0
[PATCH 9/9] 00mme update pte hook.patch
...d we don't want to
@@ -258,6 +275,7 @@ do { \
do { \
if (dirty) { \
(ptep)->pte_low = (entry).pte_low; \
+ pte_update_defer((vma)->vm_mm, (addr), (ptep)); \
flush_tlb_page(vma, address); \
} \
} while (0)
@@ -287,6 +305,7 @@ do { \
__dirty = pte_dirty(*(ptep)); \
if (__dirty) { \
clear_bit(_PAGE_BIT_DIRTY, &(ptep)->pte_low); \
+ pte_update_defer((vma)->vm_mm, (addr), (ptep)); \
flush_tlb_page(vma, address); \
} \
__dirty; \
@@ -299,6 +318,7 @@ do { \
__young = pte_young(*(p...
2007 Apr 18
1
[RFC, PATCH 19/24] i386 Vmi mmu changes
...t ptep_test_and_clear_young(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long addr, pte_t *ptep)
{
if (!pte_young(*ptep))
@@ -281,6 +289,15 @@ static inline void ptep_set_wrprotect(st
clear_bit(_PAGE_BIT_RW, &ptep->pte_low);
}
+#define ptep_set_access_flags(__vma, __address, __ptep, __entry, __dirty) \
+ do { \
+ if (__dirty) { \
+ (__ptep)->pte_low = (__entry).pte_low; \
+ flush_tlb_page(__vma, __address); \
+ } \
+ } while (0)
+#endif /* !__HAVE_SUBARCH_PTE_WRITE_FUNCTIONS */
+
/*
* clone_pgd_range(pgd_t *dst, pgd_t *src, int count);
*
@@ -397,11...
2007 Apr 18
1
[RFC, PATCH 19/24] i386 Vmi mmu changes
...t ptep_test_and_clear_young(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long addr, pte_t *ptep)
{
if (!pte_young(*ptep))
@@ -281,6 +289,15 @@ static inline void ptep_set_wrprotect(st
clear_bit(_PAGE_BIT_RW, &ptep->pte_low);
}
+#define ptep_set_access_flags(__vma, __address, __ptep, __entry, __dirty) \
+ do { \
+ if (__dirty) { \
+ (__ptep)->pte_low = (__entry).pte_low; \
+ flush_tlb_page(__vma, __address); \
+ } \
+ } while (0)
+#endif /* !__HAVE_SUBARCH_PTE_WRITE_FUNCTIONS */
+
/*
* clone_pgd_range(pgd_t *dst, pgd_t *src, int count);
*
@@ -397,11...
2007 Apr 18
3
[PATCH] abstract out bits of ldt.c
Chris Wright wrote:
>* Zachary Amsden (zach@vmware.com) wrote:
>
>
>>Does Xen assume page aligned descriptor tables? I assume from this
>>
>>
>
>Yes.
>
>
>
>>patch and snippets I have gathered from others, that is a yes, and other
>>things here imply that DT pages are not shadowed. If so, Xen itself
>>must have live segments
2007 Apr 18
3
[PATCH] abstract out bits of ldt.c
Chris Wright wrote:
>* Zachary Amsden (zach@vmware.com) wrote:
>
>
>>Does Xen assume page aligned descriptor tables? I assume from this
>>
>>
>
>Yes.
>
>
>
>>patch and snippets I have gathered from others, that is a yes, and other
>>things here imply that DT pages are not shadowed. If so, Xen itself
>>must have live segments
2007 Oct 31
5
[PATCH 0/7] (Re-)introducing pvops for x86_64 - Real pvops work part
Hey folks,
This is the part-of-pvops-implementation-that-is-not-exactly-a-merge. Neat,
uh? This is the majority of the work.
The first patch in the series does not really belong here. It was already
sent to lkml separetedly before, but I'm including it again, for a very
simple reason: Try to test the paravirt patches without it, and you'll fail
miserably ;-) (and it was not yet
2007 Oct 31
5
[PATCH 0/7] (Re-)introducing pvops for x86_64 - Real pvops work part
Hey folks,
This is the part-of-pvops-implementation-that-is-not-exactly-a-merge. Neat,
uh? This is the majority of the work.
The first patch in the series does not really belong here. It was already
sent to lkml separetedly before, but I'm including it again, for a very
simple reason: Try to test the paravirt patches without it, and you'll fail
miserably ;-) (and it was not yet
2007 Aug 10
9
[PATCH 0/25 -v2] paravirt_ops for x86_64, second round
Here is an slightly updated version of the paravirt_ops patch.
If your comments and criticism were welcome before, now it's even more!
There are some issues that are _not_ addressed in this revision, and here
are the causes:
* split debugreg into multiple functions, suggested by Andi:
- Me and jsfg agree that introducing more pvops (specially 14!) is
not worthwhile. So, although we do
2007 Aug 10
9
[PATCH 0/25 -v2] paravirt_ops for x86_64, second round
Here is an slightly updated version of the paravirt_ops patch.
If your comments and criticism were welcome before, now it's even more!
There are some issues that are _not_ addressed in this revision, and here
are the causes:
* split debugreg into multiple functions, suggested by Andi:
- Me and jsfg agree that introducing more pvops (specially 14!) is
not worthwhile. So, although we do
2007 Nov 09
11
[PATCH 0/24] paravirt_ops for unified x86 - that's me again!
Hey folks,
Here's a new spin of the pvops64 patch series.
We didn't get that many comments from the last time,
so it should be probably almost ready to get in. Heya!
>From the last version, the most notable changes are:
* consolidation of system.h, merging jeremy's comments about ordering
concerns
* consolidation of smp functions that goes through smp_ops. They're sharing
2007 Nov 09
11
[PATCH 0/24] paravirt_ops for unified x86 - that's me again!
Hey folks,
Here's a new spin of the pvops64 patch series.
We didn't get that many comments from the last time,
so it should be probably almost ready to get in. Heya!
>From the last version, the most notable changes are:
* consolidation of system.h, merging jeremy's comments about ordering
concerns
* consolidation of smp functions that goes through smp_ops. They're sharing
2007 Aug 15
13
[PATCH 0/25][V3] pvops_64 last round (hopefully)
This is hopefully the last iteration of the pvops64 patch.
>From the last version, we have only one change, which is include/asm-x86_64/processor.h: There were still one survivor in raw asm.
Also, git screwed me up for some reason, and the 25th patch was missing the new files, paravirt.{c,h}. (although I do remember having git-add'ed it, but who knows...)
Andrew, could you please push it
2007 Aug 15
13
[PATCH 0/25][V3] pvops_64 last round (hopefully)
This is hopefully the last iteration of the pvops64 patch.
>From the last version, we have only one change, which is include/asm-x86_64/processor.h: There were still one survivor in raw asm.
Also, git screwed me up for some reason, and the 25th patch was missing the new files, paravirt.{c,h}. (although I do remember having git-add'ed it, but who knows...)
Andrew, could you please push it