[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080130202918.GB11324@sgi.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 14:29:18 -0600
From: Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@...ranet.com>, Robin Holt <holt@....com>,
Avi Kivity <avi@...ranet.com>, Izik Eidus <izike@...ranet.com>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, kvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
daniel.blueman@...drics.com, Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 2/6] mmu_notifier: Callbacks to invalidate address ranges
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 11:41:29AM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008, Jack Steiner wrote:
>
> > I see what you mean. I need to review to mail to see why this changed
> > but in the original discussions with Christoph, the invalidate_range
> > callouts were suppose to be made BEFORE the pages were put on the freelist.
>
> Seems that we cannot rely on the invalidate_ranges for correctness at all?
> We need to have invalidate_page() always. invalidate_range() is only an
> optimization.
>
I don't understand your point "an optimization". How would invalidate_range
as currently defined be correctly used?
It _looks_ like it would work only if xpmem/gru/etc takes a refcnt on
the page & drops it when invalidate_range is called. That may work (not sure)
for xpmem but not for the GRU.
--- jack
--
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