[PATCH] [ARM] Do not call flush_cache_user_range with mmap_semheld
Jamie Lokier
jamie at shareable.org
Thu May 6 12:07:52 EDT 2010
Jamie Lokier wrote:
> Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > The flush_cache_user_range operation cannot actually damage the data. If
> > the application is so badly written that one of its threads remaps a
> > page range while another thread writes to it and flushes the caches,
> > then it deserves the memory corruption.
>
> It may deserve corruption, but doing corruption silently is cruel.
>
> Moreover, calling mprotect(PROT_READ) in one thread while another
> thread is writing to the same regions is a valid, and used, garbage
> collector dirty-tracking technique. (Page faults provide the info,
> and the fault handler uses PROT_WRITE to let the faulting thread
> continue on each tracked page.)
>
> Is it possible to percolate EFAULT to the right places when the cache
> flush faults?
Scratch that idea. How about just doing a full mm
(address-independent) cache flush if a fault occurs?
Performance doesn't matter (it's not a normal situation), and it's
better than corruption (no week-long debugging session surprise).
-- Jamie
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list