[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <480FA4A9.4090403@qumranet.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 00:05:45 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...ranet.com>
To: Robin Holt <holt@....com>
CC: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@...ranet.com>,
Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
kvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
Kanoj Sarcar <kanojsarcar@...oo.com>,
Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>,
Steve Wise <swise@...ngridcomputing.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
general@...ts.openfabrics.org, Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04 of 12] Moves all mmu notifier methods outside the PT
lock (first and not last
Robin Holt wrote:
>> an hurry like we are, we can't progress without this. Infact we can
>>
>
> SGI is under an equally strict timeline. We really needed the sleeping
> version into 2.6.26. We may still be able to get this accepted by
> vendor distros if we make 2.6.27.
>
The difference is that the non-sleeping variant can be shown not to
affect stability or performance, even if configed in, as long as its not
used. The sleeping variant will raise performance and stability concerns.
I have zero objections to sleeping mmu notifiers; I only object to tying
the schedules of the two together.
--
Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.
--
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