Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 1 Feb 2019 22:02:30 +0100
From:   Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To:     Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Christian =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=F6nig?= <christian.koenig@amd.com>,
        Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
        Felix Kuehling <Felix.Kuehling@amd.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@mellanox.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@microsoft.com>,
        Ross Zwisler <zwisler@kernel.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Radim =?utf-8?B?S3LEjW3DocWZ?= <rkrcmar@redhat.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        Ralph Campbell <rcampbell@nvidia.com>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/9] mmu notifier provide context informations
Message-ID: <20190201210230.GA11643@quack2.suse.cz>
References: <20190123222315.1122-1-jglisse@redhat.com>
 <20190131161006.GA16593@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190131161006.GA16593@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu 31-01-19 11:10:06, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> 
> Andrew what is your plan for this ? I had a discussion with Peter Xu
> and Andrea about change_pte() and kvm. Today the change_pte() kvm
> optimization is effectively disabled because of invalidate_range
> calls. With a minimal couple lines patch on top of this patchset
> we can bring back the kvm change_pte optimization and we can also
> optimize some other cases like for instance when write protecting
> after fork (but i am not sure this is something qemu does often so
> it might not help for real kvm workload).
> 
> I will be posting a the extra patch as an RFC, but in the meantime
> i wanted to know what was the status for this.
> 
> Jan, Christian does your previous ACK still holds for this ?

Yes, I still think the approach makes sense. Dan's concern about in tree
users is valid but it seems you have those just not merged yet, right?

								Honza

-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR