diff for duplicates of <1536959337.12990.27.camel@intel.com>
diff --git a/a/content_digest b/N1/content_digest
index 3d7b0ad..7f3ff52 100644
--- a/a/content_digest
+++ b/N1/content_digest
@@ -72,9 +72,7 @@
" Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz\@oracle.com>",
" Nadav Amit <nadav.amit\@gmail.com>",
" Oleg Nesterov <oleg\@redhat.com>",
- " Pavel Machek <pavel\@ucw.cz>",
- " ravi.v.shankar\@intel.com",
- " vedvyas.shanbhogue\@intel.com\0"
+ " Pavel Machek <pavel\@ucw.cz>\0"
]
[
"\0000:1\0"
@@ -117,4 +115,4 @@
"ptep_set_wrprotect()?"
]
-c971dff974c256b164269cf81bf5fc62d8c40186b38c95a56868268776e705dd
+5f2c039aed05f5dd8ffa7888b0463693ed80b0321776cd6ef7e385f6ec9b8bc5
diff --git a/a/1.txt b/N2/1.txt
index 8735792..f831236 100644
--- a/a/1.txt
+++ b/N2/1.txt
@@ -3,14 +3,14 @@ On Fri, 2018-09-14 at 13:46 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> >
> > With the updated ptep_set_wrprotect() below, I did MADV_WILLNEED to a shadow
> > stack of 8 MB, then 10,000 fork()'s, but could not prove it is more or less
-> > efficient than the other. So can we say this is probably fine in terms of
+> > efficient than the other. A So can we say this is probably fine in terms of
> > efficiency?
-> Well, the first fork() will do all the hard work. I don't think
+> Well, the first fork() will do all the hard work.A A I don't think
> subsequent fork()s will be affected.
Are you talking about a recent commit:
- 1b2de5d0 mm/cow: don't bother write protecting already write-protected pages
+A A 1b2de5d0 mm/cow: don't bother write protecting already write-protected pages
With that, subsequent fork()s will not do all the hard work.
However, I have not done that for shadow stack PTEs (do we want to do that?).
@@ -28,5 +28,5 @@ I think the additional benefit for shadow stack is small?
>
> might show it better.
-Would mprotect() do copy_one_pte()? Otherwise it will not go through
+Would mprotect() do copy_one_pte()? A Otherwise it will not go through
ptep_set_wrprotect()?
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/a/content_digest b/N2/content_digest
index 3d7b0ad..3e4a355 100644
--- a/a/content_digest
+++ b/N2/content_digest
@@ -88,14 +88,14 @@
"> > \n",
"> > With the updated ptep_set_wrprotect() below, I did MADV_WILLNEED to a shadow\n",
"> > stack of 8 MB, then 10,000 fork()'s, but could not prove it is more or less\n",
- "> > efficient than the other. \302\240So can we say this is probably fine in terms of\n",
+ "> > efficient than the other. A So can we say this is probably fine in terms of\n",
"> > efficiency?\n",
- "> Well, the first fork() will do all the hard work.\302\240\302\240I don't think\n",
+ "> Well, the first fork() will do all the hard work.A A I don't think\n",
"> subsequent fork()s will be affected.\n",
"\n",
"Are you talking about a recent commit:\n",
"\n",
- "\302\240 \302\240 1b2de5d0 mm/cow: don't bother write protecting already write-protected pages\n",
+ "A A 1b2de5d0 mm/cow: don't bother write protecting already write-protected pages\n",
"\n",
"With that, subsequent fork()s will not do all the hard work.\n",
"However, I have not done that for shadow stack PTEs (do we want to do that?).\n",
@@ -113,8 +113,8 @@
"> \n",
"> might show it better.\n",
"\n",
- "Would mprotect() do copy_one_pte()? \302\240Otherwise it will not go through\n",
+ "Would mprotect() do copy_one_pte()? A Otherwise it will not go through\n",
"ptep_set_wrprotect()?"
]
-c971dff974c256b164269cf81bf5fc62d8c40186b38c95a56868268776e705dd
+441a7dc22cf366afe872abc4952d95023644dc68f20b1ff008cb23233320302f
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.