Dave Hansen <dave@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> +pte_t ptep_clear_flush(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long address,
> + pte_t *ptep)
> +{
> + struct mm_struct *mm = vma->vm_mm;
> + pte_t pte;
> +
> + pte = ptep_get_and_clear(mm, address, ptep);
> + if (pte_accessible(mm, pte)) {
> + flush_tlb_page(vma, address);
> + /*
> + * Ensure that the compiler orders our set_pte()
> + * after the flush_tlb_page() no matter what.
> + */
> + barrier();
I don’t think such a barrier (after remote TLB flush) is needed.
Eventually, if a remote flush takes place, you get csd_lock_wait() to be
called, and then smp_rmb() is called (which is essentially a barrier()
call on x86).
Regards,
Nadav
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href