[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080219133009.GG7128@v2.random>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:30:09 +0100
From: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@...ranet.com>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Robin Holt <holt@....com>, Avi Kivity <avi@...ranet.com>,
Izik Eidus <izike@...ranet.com>,
kvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
general@...ts.openfabrics.org,
Steve Wise <swise@...ngridcomputing.com>,
Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>,
Kanoj Sarcar <kanojsarcar@...oo.com>, steiner@....com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
daniel.blueman@...drics.com
Subject: Re: [patch 3/6] mmu_notifier: invalidate_page callbacks
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 07:46:10PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Sunday 17 February 2008 06:22, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Feb 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > > > flush_cache_page(vma, address, pte_pfn(*pte));
> > > > entry = ptep_clear_flush(vma, address, pte);
> > > > + mmu_notifier(invalidate_page, mm, address);
> > >
> > > I just don't see how ths can be done if the callee has another thread in
> > > the middle of establishing IO against this region of memory.
> > > ->invalidate_page() _has_ to be able to block. Confused.
> >
> > The page lock is held and that holds off I/O?
>
> I think the actual answer is that "it doesn't matter".
Agreed. The PG_lock itself taken when invalidate_page is called, is
used to serialized the VM against the VM, not the VM against I/O.
--
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