Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755716AbYB2BI7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Feb 2008 20:08:59 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1759482AbYB2BAG (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Feb 2008 20:00:06 -0500 Received: from netops-testserver-3-out.sgi.com ([192.48.171.28]:35928 "EHLO relay.sgi.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1762046AbYB2BAB (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Feb 2008 20:00:01 -0500 Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:59:59 -0800 (PST) From: Christoph Lameter X-X-Sender: clameter@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com To: Andrea Arcangeli cc: Nick Piggin , 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 Subject: Re: [patch 2/6] mmu_notifier: Callbacks to invalidate address ranges In-Reply-To: <20080229005530.GO8091@v2.random> Message-ID: References: <20080215064859.384203497@sgi.com> <20080215064932.620773824@sgi.com> <200802201008.49933.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> <20080228001104.GB8091@v2.random> <20080228005249.GF8091@v2.random> <20080228011020.GG8091@v2.random> <20080229005530.GO8091@v2.random> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1080 Lines: 25 On Fri, 29 Feb 2008, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 10:43:54AM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > What about invalidate_page()? > > That would just spin waiting an ack (just like the smp-tlb-flushing > invalidates in numa already does). And thus the device driver may stop receiving data on a UP system? It will never get the ack. > Thinking more about this, we could also parallelize it with an > invalidate_page_before/end. If it takes 1usec to flush remotely, > scheduling would be overkill, but spending 1usec in a while loop isn't > nice if we can parallelize that 1usec with the ipi-tlb-flush. Not sure > if it makes sense... it certainly would be quick to add it (especially > thanks to _notify ;). invalidate_page_before/end could be realized as an invalidate_range_begin/end on a page sized range? -- 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/