Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1763923AbYBTCt7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Feb 2008 21:49:59 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1763616AbYBTCtr (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Feb 2008 21:49:47 -0500 Received: from relay1.sgi.com ([192.48.171.29]:53953 "EHLO relay.sgi.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755853AbYBTCtp (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Feb 2008 21:49:45 -0500 Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 20:49:44 -0600 From: Robin Holt To: Nick Piggin Cc: Andrea Arcangeli , 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: <20080220024944.GB11364@sgi.com> 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> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15+20070412 (2007-04-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1758 Lines: 35 On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 12:11:57AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote: > On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 02:58:51PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 09:43:57AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > anything when changing the pte to be _more_ permissive, and I don't > > > > Note that in my patch the invalidate_pages in mprotect can be > > trivially switched to a mprotect_pages with proper params. This will > > prevent page faults completely in the secondary MMU (there will only > > be tlb misses after the tlb flush just like for the core linux pte), > > and it'll allow all the secondary MMU pte blocks (512/1024 at time > > with my PT lock design) to be updated to have proper permissions > > matching the core linux pte. > > 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... > > 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. I don't believe it should, but it probably does right now. I do know the case where a write fault where there is no need for a COW does not call out on the PTE change. I see no reason the others should not handle this as well. Just off the top of my head, I can only think of the mprotect case needing to special case the more permissive state and I don't think that changes PTEs at all, merely updates the VMA. Thanks, Robin -- 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/