[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47066AD0.4010102@goop.org>
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 09:48:16 -0700
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Keir Fraser <keir@...source.com>
CC: Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...ell.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
Ken Chen <kenchen@...gle.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: race with page_referenced_one->ptep_test_and_clear_young and
pagetable setup/pulldown
Keir Fraser wrote:
> I didn't think that nobbling config options for particular pv_ops
> implementations was acceptable? I'm rather out of the loop though, and could
> be wrong.
>
As a workaround it would be OK. As a dependency, perhaps.
> The PREEMPT_BITS limitation is a good argument for at least taking the pte
> locks in small batches though (small batches is preferable to one-by-one
> since we will want to batch the make-readonly-and-pin hypercall requests to
> amortise the cost of the hypervisor trap).
>
Hm, that's a good point. The pagetable permissions changes are batched
more or less asynchronously from the actual loop structure; that will
complicate adding the locking.
J
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists