[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0802281658560.1954@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:59:59 -0800 (PST)
From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@...ranet.com>
cc: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>, 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 2/6] mmu_notifier: Callbacks to invalidate address ranges
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 10:43:54AM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > What about invalidate_page()?
>
> That would just spin waiting an ack (just like the smp-tlb-flushing
> invalidates in numa already does).
And thus the device driver may stop receiving data on a UP system? It will
never get the ack.
> Thinking more about this, we could also parallelize it with an
> invalidate_page_before/end. If it takes 1usec to flush remotely,
> scheduling would be overkill, but spending 1usec in a while loop isn't
> nice if we can parallelize that 1usec with the ipi-tlb-flush. Not sure
> if it makes sense... it certainly would be quick to add it (especially
> thanks to _notify ;).
invalidate_page_before/end could be realized as an
invalidate_range_begin/end on a page sized range?
--
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