[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4859E8AF.30306@goop.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:03:43 -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:
> On Wed, 2008-06-18 at 17:24 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>>
>>> Along the lines of:
>>>
>> Hell no. There's a reason we have a special set_wrprotect() thing. We can
>> do it more efficiently on native hardware by just clearing the bit
>> atomically. No need to do the cmpxchg games.
>>
>
> But we can't batch ...
>
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.
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