search for: _page_bit_accessed

...0; - return test_and_clear_bit(_PAGE_BIT_DIRTY, &ptep->pte_low); -} - #define __HAVE_ARCH_PTEP_TEST_AND_CLEAR_YOUNG -static inline int ptep_test_and_clear_young(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_t...

...\ - pte_update_defer((vma)->vm_mm, (addr), (ptep)); \ + pte_update_defer((vma)->vm_mm, (address), (ptep)); \ flush_tlb_page(vma, address); \ } \ __dirty; \ @@ -318,7 +318,7 @@ do { \ __young = pte_young(*(ptep)); \ if (__young) { \ clear_bit(_PAGE_BIT_ACCESSED, &(ptep)->pte_low); \ - pte_update_defer((vma)->vm_mm, (addr), (ptep)); \ + pte_update_defer((vma)->vm_mm, (address), (ptep)); \ flush_tlb_page(vma, address); \ } \ __young; \

...\ - pte_update_defer((vma)->vm_mm, (addr), (ptep)); \ + pte_update_defer((vma)->vm_mm, (address), (ptep)); \ flush_tlb_page(vma, address); \ } \ __dirty; \ @@ -318,7 +318,7 @@ do { \ __young = pte_young(*(ptep)); \ if (__young) { \ clear_bit(_PAGE_BIT_ACCESSED, &(ptep)->pte_low); \ - pte_update_defer((vma)->vm_mm, (addr), (ptep)); \ + pte_update_defer((vma)->vm_mm, (address), (ptep)); \ flush_tlb_page(vma, address); \ } \ __young; \

...\ 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(*(ptep)); \ if (__young) { \ clear_bit(_PAGE_BIT_ACCESSED, &(ptep)->pte_low); \ + pte_update_defer((vma)->vm_mm, (addr), (ptep)); \ flush_tlb_page(vma, address); \ } \ __young; \ @@ -321,6 +341,7 @@ static inline void ptep_set_wrprotect(st static inline void ptep_set_wrprotect(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr, p...

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

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

...= entry; - pmd_update_defer(vma->vm_mm, address, pmdp); /* * We had a write-protection fault here and changed the pmd * to to more permissive. No need to flush the TLB for that, @@ -469,9 +468,6 @@ int pmdp_test_and_clear_young(struct vm_area_struct *vma, ret = test_and_clear_bit(_PAGE_BIT_ACCESSED, (unsigned long *)pmdp); - if (ret) - pmd_update(vma->vm_mm, addr, pmdp); - return ret; } #endif @@ -518,7 +514,6 @@ void pmdp_splitting_flush(struct vm_area_struct *vma, set = !test_and_set_bit(_PAGE_BIT_SPLITTING, (unsigned long *)pmdp); if (set) { - pmd_update(vma->...

...= entry; - pmd_update_defer(vma->vm_mm, address, pmdp); /* * We had a write-protection fault here and changed the pmd * to to more permissive. No need to flush the TLB for that, @@ -469,9 +468,6 @@ int pmdp_test_and_clear_young(struct vm_area_struct *vma, ret = test_and_clear_bit(_PAGE_BIT_ACCESSED, (unsigned long *)pmdp); - if (ret) - pmd_update(vma->vm_mm, addr, pmdp); - return ret; } #endif @@ -518,7 +514,6 @@ void pmdp_splitting_flush(struct vm_area_struct *vma, set = !test_and_set_bit(_PAGE_BIT_SPLITTING, (unsigned long *)pmdp); if (set) { - pmd_update(vma->...

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

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

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

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

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

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

...changed = !pte_same(*ptep, entry); - if (changed && dirty) { + if (changed && dirty) *ptep = entry; - pte_update(vma->vm_mm, address, ptep); - } return changed; } @@ -486,9 +484,6 @@ int ptep_test_and_clear_young(struct vm_area_struct *vma, ret = test_and_clear_bit(_PAGE_BIT_ACCESSED, (unsigned long *) &ptep->pte); - if (ret) - pte_update(vma->vm_mm, addr, ptep); - return ret; } diff --git a/arch/x86/xen/enlighten_pv.c b/arch/x86/xen/enlighten_pv.c index 811e4ddb3f37..a204a95200d3 100644 --- a/arch/x86/xen/enlighten_pv.c +++ b/arch/x86/xen/enlighten_pv....

...changed = !pte_same(*ptep, entry); - if (changed && dirty) { + if (changed && dirty) *ptep = entry; - pte_update(vma->vm_mm, address, ptep); - } return changed; } @@ -486,9 +484,6 @@ int ptep_test_and_clear_young(struct vm_area_struct *vma, ret = test_and_clear_bit(_PAGE_BIT_ACCESSED, (unsigned long *) &ptep->pte); - if (ret) - pte_update(vma->vm_mm, addr, ptep); - return ret; } diff --git a/arch/x86/xen/enlighten_pv.c b/arch/x86/xen/enlighten_pv.c index 811e4ddb3f37..a204a95200d3 100644 --- a/arch/x86/xen/enlighten_pv.c +++ b/arch/x86/xen/enlighten_pv....

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

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

...+{ + int retval = vmi_test_and_clear_pxe_bit(&ptep->pte_low, _PAGE_BIT_DIRTY); + return retval; +} + +static inline int ptep_test_and_clear_young(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long addr, pte_t *ptep) +{ + int retval = vmi_test_and_clear_pxe_bit(&ptep->pte_low, _PAGE_BIT_ACCESSED); + return retval; +} + +static inline void ptep_set_wrprotect(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr, pte_t *ptep) +{ + (void)vmi_test_and_clear_pxe_bit(&ptep->pte_low, _PAGE_BIT_RW); +} + +#endif /* _MACH_PGTABLE_LEVEL_OPS_H */ Index: linux-2.6.16-rc5/include/asm-i386/mach-vmi/...

...+{ + int retval = vmi_test_and_clear_pxe_bit(&ptep->pte_low, _PAGE_BIT_DIRTY); + return retval; +} + +static inline int ptep_test_and_clear_young(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long addr, pte_t *ptep) +{ + int retval = vmi_test_and_clear_pxe_bit(&ptep->pte_low, _PAGE_BIT_ACCESSED); + return retval; +} + +static inline void ptep_set_wrprotect(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr, pte_t *ptep) +{ + (void)vmi_test_and_clear_pxe_bit(&ptep->pte_low, _PAGE_BIT_RW); +} + +#endif /* _MACH_PGTABLE_LEVEL_OPS_H */ Index: linux-2.6.16-rc5/include/asm-i386/mach-vmi/...