[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0801311824360.25839@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 18:26:36 -0800 (PST)
From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To: Robin Holt <holt@....com>
cc: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@...ranet.com>,
Avi Kivity <avi@...ranet.com>, Izik Eidus <izike@...ranet.com>,
kvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, steiner@....com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
daniel.blueman@...drics.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmu notifiers #v5
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008, Robin Holt wrote:
> > Mutex locking? Could you be more specific?
>
> I think he is talking about the external locking that xpmem will need
> to do to ensure we are not able to refault pages inside of regions that
> are undergoing recall/page table clearing. At least that has been my
> understanding to this point.
Right this has to be something like rw spinlock. Its needed for both
GRU/XPmem. Not sure about KVM.
Take the read lock for invalidate operations. These can occur
concurrently. (Or a simpler implementation for the GRU may just use a
spinlock).
The write lock must be held for populate operations.
Lock can be refined as needed by the notifier driver. F.e. locking could
be restricted to certain ranges.
--
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