[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080220010941.GR7128@v2.random>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 02:09:41 +0100
From: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@...ranet.com>
To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Cc: 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, Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Subject: Re: [patch] my mmu notifiers
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 12:11:57AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Sorry, I realise I still didn't get this through my head yet (and also
> have not seen your patch recently). So I don't know exactly what you
> are doing...
The last version was posted here:
http://marc.info/?l=kvm-devel&m=120321732521533&w=2
> But why does _anybody_ (why does Christoph's patches) need to invalidate
> when they are going to be more permissive? This should be done lazily by
> the driver, I would have thought.
This can be done lazily by the driver yes. The place where I've an
invalidate_pages in mprotect however can also become less permissive.
It's simpler to invalidate always and it's not guaranteed the
secondary mmu page fault is capable of refreshing the spte across a
writeprotect fault. In the future this can be changed to
mprotect_pages though, so no page fault will happen in the secondary
mmu.
--
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