ARM highmem stuff - 5687/1

Nicolas Pitre nico at
Fri Sep 4 15:33:53 EDT 2009

On Fri, 4 Sep 2009, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 11:52:33AM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > On Wed, 2 Sep 2009, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > 
> > > Do we need a similar fix for flush_anon_page()?
> > 
> > Hmmmm... Maybe.  Especially since the only usage of flush_anon_page() is 
> > in __get_user_pages() where the page passed to flush_anon_page() may or 
> > may not be kmapped (it is not explicitly kmapped in that function, but 
> > non atomic kmaps are lazily unmapped and would still require to be 
> > flushed if their mapping is still there).  However, in 
> > __get_user_pages(), there is a flush_dcache_page() right after the call 
> > to flush_anon_page(), so the __cpuc_flush_dcache_page() in 
> > __flush_anon_page() appears redundant to me and could simply be removed 
> > entirely.
> I'm not sure this is right.  It looks to me as if it is possible for
> a page have both a mapping _and_ be an anonymous page - which can happen
> if the page is an anonymous page which has been placed into the swapcache.

Hmmm...  Right.  However...

> In this case, flush_dcache_page() may just set the PG_dcache_dirty bit
> without flushing anything.

But only if there is indeed a mapping and it is unmapped.  In which case 
isn't the flush going to happen before the page gets mapped into user 
space anyway?

> I do know that flush_anon_page() was required to stabilise the list server.

Do you mean __cpuc_flush_dcache_page() inside flush_anon_page()?

Might this be because the page can still be dirty by not being mapped 
yet and therefore PG_dcache_dirty is still set at the moment 
flush_anon_page() is called, and then some IO is performed on that page 
using DMA to swap it out for example?  Is that possible? If so that 
would look more logical to me if the call to __cpuc_flush_dcache_page() 
was conditional on the PG_dcache_dirty bit.

> With the list server now effectively redundant, I've no way to test this
> stuff, so I'm going to leave the duplicate flushing in place and won't
> apply your patch.

If my assertion above is true, then I agree that the patch is wrong.


More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list