[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100714170805.GC4955@Krystal>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 13:08:05 -0400
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...tedt.homelinux.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@...el.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
Tom Zanussi <tzanussi@...il.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 0/2] x86: NMI-safe trap handlers
* Andi Kleen (andi@...stfloor.org) wrote:
> > x86_32 cannot use vmalloc_sync_all() to sychronize the TLBs from every
> > processes because the vmalloc area is mapped in a different address space for
>
> That doesn't make sense. vmalloc_all_sync() should work on 32bit too.
> It just needs to walk all processes and fix up every page table.
Yeah, I've been taken aback when Tejun told me that a few moments ago. I
initially thought that vmalloc_sync_all() synchronized all page mappings of all
processes on x86_32. But apparently that does not seem to be the case. I'm
adding him in CC.
Thanks,
Mathieu
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
--
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