[gclist] memory protections and system calls

[Giuliano Carlini]

Stefan Monnier wrote:
> 
> Giuliano Carlini <giuliano@ix.netcom.com> said:
> > The kernel believes the pages it wrote aren't dirty. But,
> > since the driver didn't pass them on, the write never took
> > place. So, the driver had better tell the kernel that the
> > page is still dirty.
>
> But then, at the next flush, the kernel will again tell you those pages are
> dirty and you won't be able to tell if this is because the VDB purposefully
> dirtied them or because the mutator touched them again in the mean time.

Ah! A lightbulb goes off, and I understand the problem. Sorry I
misunderstood your point Hans. I think this can be solved, but I'll
need to think about it a bit.

> I'm sure there is some way to get what you want with such a scheme, but on
> another hand, I'm wondering if the efficiency will really be improved compared
> to more traditional methods.

I'm not sure. I believe it will. But, only trying it will tell.

>         Stefan

Thanks for the help,

g