[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49470433.4050504@goop.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 17:28:19 -0800
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] vm_unmap_aliases: allow callers to inhibit TLB flush
Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Friday 12 December 2008 12:59, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>
>> Nick Piggin wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Friday 12 December 2008 06:05, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Nick,
>>>>
>>>> In Xen when we're killing the lazy vmalloc aliases, we're only concerned
>>>> about the pagetable references to the mapped pages, not the TLB entries.
>>>>
>>> Hm? Why is that? Why wouldn't it matter if some page table page gets
>>> written to via a stale TLB?
>>>
>> No. Well, yes, it would, but Xen itself will do whatever tlb flushes
>> are necessary to keep it safe (it must, since it doesn't trust guest
>> kernels). It's fairly clever about working out which cpus need flushing
>> and if other flushes have already done the job.
>>
>
> OK. Yeah, then the problem is simply that the guest may reuse that virtual
> memory for another vmap.
>
Hm. What you would you think of a "deferred tlb flush" flag (or
something) to cause the next vmap to do the tlb flushes, in the case the
vunmap happens in a context where the flushes can't be done?
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