[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080422132143.GS12709@duo.random>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:21:43 +0200
From: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@...ranet.com>
To: Robin Holt <holt@....com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Steve Wise <swise@...ngridcomputing.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Kanoj Sarcar <kanojsarcar@...oo.com>,
Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>,
Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Avi Kivity <avi@...ranet.com>, kvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
general@...ts.openfabrics.org, Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0 of 9] mmu notifier #v12
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 08:01:20AM -0500, Robin Holt wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 02:00:56PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 09:20:26AM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > > invalidate_range_start {
> > > spin_lock(&kvm->mmu_lock);
> > >
> > > kvm->invalidate_range_count++;
> > > rmap-invalidate of sptes in range
> > >
> >
> > write_seqlock; write_sequnlock;
>
> I don't think you need it here since invalidate_range_count is already
> elevated which will accomplish the same effect.
Agreed, seqlock only in range_end should be enough. BTW, the fact
seqlock is needed regardless of invalidate_page existing or not,
really makes invalidate_page a no brainer not just from the core VM
point of view, but from the driver point of view too. The
kvm_page_fault logic would be the same even if I remove
invalidate_page from the mmu notifier patch but it'd run slower both
when armed and disarmed.
--
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