Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1763745AbYBTBJy (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Feb 2008 20:09:54 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756747AbYBTBJq (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Feb 2008 20:09:46 -0500 Received: from host36-195-149-62.serverdedicati.aruba.it ([62.149.195.36]:45899 "EHLO mx.cpushare.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756552AbYBTBJp (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Feb 2008 20:09:45 -0500 Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 02:09:41 +0100 From: Andrea Arcangeli To: Nick Piggin Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, Robin Holt , Avi Kivity , Izik Eidus , kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Peter Zijlstra , general@lists.openfabrics.org, Steve Wise , Roland Dreier , Kanoj Sarcar , steiner@sgi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, daniel.blueman@quadrics.com, Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [patch] my mmu notifiers Message-ID: <20080220010941.GR7128@v2.random> References: <20080219084357.GA22249@wotan.suse.de> <20080219135851.GI7128@v2.random> <20080219231157.GC18912@wotan.suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080219231157.GC18912@wotan.suse.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1139 Lines: 25 On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 12:11:57AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote: > Sorry, I realise I still didn't get this through my head yet (and also > have not seen your patch recently). So I don't know exactly what you > are doing... The last version was posted here: http://marc.info/?l=kvm-devel&m=120321732521533&w=2 > But why does _anybody_ (why does Christoph's patches) need to invalidate > when they are going to be more permissive? This should be done lazily by > the driver, I would have thought. This can be done lazily by the driver yes. The place where I've an invalidate_pages in mprotect however can also become less permissive. It's simpler to invalidate always and it's not guaranteed the secondary mmu page fault is capable of refreshing the spte across a writeprotect fault. In the future this can be changed to mprotect_pages though, so no page fault will happen in the secondary mmu. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/