[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080203022356.GD7185@v2.random>
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 03:23:56 +0100
From: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@...ranet.com>
To: Robin Holt <holt@....com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....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 2/4] mmu_notifier: Callbacks to invalidate address
ranges
On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 05:35:28PM -0600, Robin Holt wrote:
> No, we need a callout when we are becoming more restrictive, but not
> when becoming more permissive. I would have to guess that is the case
> for any of these callouts. It is for both GRU and XPMEM. I would
> expect the same is true for KVM, but would like a ruling from Andrea on
> that.
I still hope I don't need to take any lock in _range_start and that
losing coherency (w/o risking global memory corruption but only
risking temporary userland data corruption thanks to the page pin) is
ok for KVM.
If I would have to take a lock in _range_start like XPMEM is forced to
do (GRU is by far not forced to it, if it would switch to my #v5) then
it would be a problem.
--
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