VME driver patch for PowerPC
Oliver Korpilla
okorpil at fh-landshut.de
Thu Jun 10 00:29:02 EST 2004
Heater, Daniel (GE Infrastructure) wrote:
>> /* Don't swap these pages out
>> */
>>- vma->vm_flags |= VM_RESERVED;
>>+ vma->vm_flags |= VM_LOCKED | VM_IO | VM_SHM;
>
>
> I'm trying to understand this change. VM_IO looks like it needs to
> be there to prevent deadlocks on core dumps.
> http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0202.0/1309.html
>
> and if I'm interpreting some older mailing list postings correctly,
> VM_RESERVED is a replacement for VM_LOCKED | VM_SHM but VM_RESERVED
> may yield some performance advantages. Thus, in later kernels you
> only see VM_RESERVED and not VM_LOCKED | VM_SHM.
>
> Maybe since this is an out of tree driver, it should have
>
>>+ vma->vm_flags |= VM_LOCKED | VM_IO | VM_SHM | VM_RESERVED;
>
>
> to handle older kernels and still get the advantages of VM_RESERVED
> on newer kernels.
>
> What do you think? Am I interpreting this correctly?
>
To be frank, I "modelled" this after the flag configuration in
pci_mmap_page_range() in the PowerPC tree of kernel 2.4.21 (where I got the page
protection changes, too).
If VM_RESERVED is somewhat of an alias, it should prove okay. Looking into my
"documentation" yielded no quick results for flag interpretation.
I could simply test, if both works.
With kind regards,
Oliver Korpilla
** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
More information about the Linuxppc-embedded
mailing list