[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1234859516.4744.12.camel@laptop>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 09:31:56 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
akpm <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: irq-disabled vs vmap vs text_poke
On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 04:03 +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> It is not a bad idea, but I don't think it quite goes far enough.
> IMO we should reserve 2 pages of virtual memory for each CPU, and
> then do the mapping/unmapping without locking, and with another
> variant of unmap_kernel_range that does not do the global TLB
> flush.
A bit like kmap_atomic() except for 2 pages and !highmem. Should work.
--
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