[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <485A9DEC.8010406@goop.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:57:00 -0700
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: benh@...nel.crashing.org
CC: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
kvm-devel <kvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>, x86@...nel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Virtualization Mailing List <virtualization@...ts.osdl.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1 of 4] mm: add a ptep_modify_prot transaction abstraction
Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>> Which architecture are you interested in? If it isn't x86, you can
>> probably get anything past Linus ;)
>>
>> I'll do some measurements to see what effect the batchable
>> ptep_set_wrprotect() has on native. If it's significant, I'll propose
>> making it conditional on CONFIG_PARAVIRT.
>>
>
> Oh, I mostly think about powerpc, I just wondered if I could re-use
> your new stuff in that context. Mostly idle thoughts at this stage, I
> haven't looked seriously.
>
There are general-purpose hooks in the common code which architectures
can implement however they like. In x86-land we hook them up to pvops,
but you can handle them however you want.
> I have an old patch set to batch forks (and mprotect etc...) TLB
> invalidations (which is what I really want to batch on powerpc, more
> than the actual PTE changes) that involves subtle changes to the
> batching mechanisms etc...
>
Do you mean setting up batches of per-page tlb shootdowns rather than
going a global tlb flush at the end?
J
--
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