| H A D | memguard.c | 7fae6a11 Tue Feb 15 22:17:07 GMT 2005 Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@FreeBSD.org> Rather than overloading the page->object field like UMA does, use instead
an unused pageq queue reference in the page structure to stash a pointer
to the MemGuard FIFO. Using the page->object field caused problems
because when vm_map_protect() was called the second time to set
VM_PROT_DEFAULT back onto a set of pages in memguard_map, the protection
in the VM would be changed but the PMAP code would lazily not restore
the PG_RW bit on the underlying pages right away (see pmap_protect()).
So when a page fault finally occured and the VM noticed the faulting
address corresponds to a page that _does_ have write access now, it
would then call into PMAP to set back PG_RW (i386 case being discussed
here). However, before it got to do that, an assertion on the object
lock not being owned would get triggered, as the object of the faulting
page would need to be locked but was overloaded by MemGuard. This is
precisely why MemGuard cannot overload page->object.
Submitted by: Alan Cox (alc@)
7fae6a11 Tue Feb 15 22:17:07 GMT 2005 Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@FreeBSD.org> Rather than overloading the page->object field like UMA does, use instead
an unused pageq queue reference in the page structure to stash a pointer
to the MemGuard FIFO. Using the page->object field caused problems
because when vm_map_protect() was called the second time to set
VM_PROT_DEFAULT back onto a set of pages in memguard_map, the protection
in the VM would be changed but the PMAP code would lazily not restore
the PG_RW bit on the underlying pages right away (see pmap_protect()).
So when a page fault finally occured and the VM noticed the faulting
address corresponds to a page that _does_ have write access now, it
would then call into PMAP to set back PG_RW (i386 case being discussed
here). However, before it got to do that, an assertion on the object
lock not being owned would get triggered, as the object of the faulting
page would need to be locked but was overloaded by MemGuard. This is
precisely why MemGuard cannot overload page->object.
Submitted by: Alan Cox (alc@)
7fae6a11 Tue Feb 15 22:17:07 GMT 2005 Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@FreeBSD.org> Rather than overloading the page->object field like UMA does, use instead
an unused pageq queue reference in the page structure to stash a pointer
to the MemGuard FIFO. Using the page->object field caused problems
because when vm_map_protect() was called the second time to set
VM_PROT_DEFAULT back onto a set of pages in memguard_map, the protection
in the VM would be changed but the PMAP code would lazily not restore
the PG_RW bit on the underlying pages right away (see pmap_protect()).
So when a page fault finally occured and the VM noticed the faulting
address corresponds to a page that _does_ have write access now, it
would then call into PMAP to set back PG_RW (i386 case being discussed
here). However, before it got to do that, an assertion on the object
lock not being owned would get triggered, as the object of the faulting
page would need to be locked but was overloaded by MemGuard. This is
precisely why MemGuard cannot overload page->object.
Submitted by: Alan Cox (alc@)
7fae6a11 Tue Feb 15 22:17:07 GMT 2005 Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@FreeBSD.org> Rather than overloading the page->object field like UMA does, use instead
an unused pageq queue reference in the page structure to stash a pointer
to the MemGuard FIFO. Using the page->object field caused problems
because when vm_map_protect() was called the second time to set
VM_PROT_DEFAULT back onto a set of pages in memguard_map, the protection
in the VM would be changed but the PMAP code would lazily not restore
the PG_RW bit on the underlying pages right away (see pmap_protect()).
So when a page fault finally occured and the VM noticed the faulting
address corresponds to a page that _does_ have write access now, it
would then call into PMAP to set back PG_RW (i386 case being discussed
here). However, before it got to do that, an assertion on the object
lock not being owned would get triggered, as the object of the faulting
page would need to be locked but was overloaded by MemGuard. This is
precisely why MemGuard cannot overload page->object.
Submitted by: Alan Cox (alc@)
7fae6a11 Tue Feb 15 22:17:07 GMT 2005 Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@FreeBSD.org> Rather than overloading the page->object field like UMA does, use instead
an unused pageq queue reference in the page structure to stash a pointer
to the MemGuard FIFO. Using the page->object field caused problems
because when vm_map_protect() was called the second time to set
VM_PROT_DEFAULT back onto a set of pages in memguard_map, the protection
in the VM would be changed but the PMAP code would lazily not restore
the PG_RW bit on the underlying pages right away (see pmap_protect()).
So when a page fault finally occured and the VM noticed the faulting
address corresponds to a page that _does_ have write access now, it
would then call into PMAP to set back PG_RW (i386 case being discussed
here). However, before it got to do that, an assertion on the object
lock not being owned would get triggered, as the object of the faulting
page would need to be locked but was overloaded by MemGuard. This is
precisely why MemGuard cannot overload page->object.
Submitted by: Alan Cox (alc@)
7fae6a11 Tue Feb 15 22:17:07 GMT 2005 Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@FreeBSD.org> Rather than overloading the page->object field like UMA does, use instead
an unused pageq queue reference in the page structure to stash a pointer
to the MemGuard FIFO. Using the page->object field caused problems
because when vm_map_protect() was called the second time to set
VM_PROT_DEFAULT back onto a set of pages in memguard_map, the protection
in the VM would be changed but the PMAP code would lazily not restore
the PG_RW bit on the underlying pages right away (see pmap_protect()).
So when a page fault finally occured and the VM noticed the faulting
address corresponds to a page that _does_ have write access now, it
would then call into PMAP to set back PG_RW (i386 case being discussed
here). However, before it got to do that, an assertion on the object
lock not being owned would get triggered, as the object of the faulting
page would need to be locked but was overloaded by MemGuard. This is
precisely why MemGuard cannot overload page->object.
Submitted by: Alan Cox (alc@)
7fae6a11 Tue Feb 15 22:17:07 GMT 2005 Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@FreeBSD.org> Rather than overloading the page->object field like UMA does, use instead
an unused pageq queue reference in the page structure to stash a pointer
to the MemGuard FIFO. Using the page->object field caused problems
because when vm_map_protect() was called the second time to set
VM_PROT_DEFAULT back onto a set of pages in memguard_map, the protection
in the VM would be changed but the PMAP code would lazily not restore
the PG_RW bit on the underlying pages right away (see pmap_protect()).
So when a page fault finally occured and the VM noticed the faulting
address corresponds to a page that _does_ have write access now, it
would then call into PMAP to set back PG_RW (i386 case being discussed
here). However, before it got to do that, an assertion on the object
lock not being owned would get triggered, as the object of the faulting
page would need to be locked but was overloaded by MemGuard. This is
precisely why MemGuard cannot overload page->object.
Submitted by: Alan Cox (alc@)
7fae6a11 Tue Feb 15 22:17:07 GMT 2005 Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@FreeBSD.org> Rather than overloading the page->object field like UMA does, use instead
an unused pageq queue reference in the page structure to stash a pointer
to the MemGuard FIFO. Using the page->object field caused problems
because when vm_map_protect() was called the second time to set
VM_PROT_DEFAULT back onto a set of pages in memguard_map, the protection
in the VM would be changed but the PMAP code would lazily not restore
the PG_RW bit on the underlying pages right away (see pmap_protect()).
So when a page fault finally occured and the VM noticed the faulting
address corresponds to a page that _does_ have write access now, it
would then call into PMAP to set back PG_RW (i386 case being discussed
here). However, before it got to do that, an assertion on the object
lock not being owned would get triggered, as the object of the faulting
page would need to be locked but was overloaded by MemGuard. This is
precisely why MemGuard cannot overload page->object.
Submitted by: Alan Cox (alc@)
|