Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759769AbYCCTBf (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Mar 2008 14:01:35 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753110AbYCCTBZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Mar 2008 14:01:25 -0500 Received: from netops-testserver-3-out.sgi.com ([192.48.171.28]:45560 "EHLO relay.sgi.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753370AbYCCTBY (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Mar 2008 14:01:24 -0500 Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 11:01:22 -0800 (PST) From: Christoph Lameter X-X-Sender: clameter@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com To: Nick Piggin cc: Andrea Arcangeli , Jack Steiner , 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 , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, daniel.blueman@quadrics.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmu notifiers #v8 In-Reply-To: <20080303032934.GA3301@wotan.suse.de> Message-ID: References: <20080219084357.GA22249@wotan.suse.de> <20080219135851.GI7128@v2.random> <20080219231157.GC18912@wotan.suse.de> <20080220010941.GR7128@v2.random> <20080220103942.GU7128@v2.random> <20080221045430.GC15215@wotan.suse.de> <20080221144023.GC9427@v2.random> <20080221161028.GA14220@sgi.com> <20080227192610.GF28483@v2.random> <20080302155457.GK8091@v2.random> <20080303032934.GA3301@wotan.suse.de> 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: 1352 Lines: 32 On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Nick Piggin wrote: > I'm still not completely happy with this. I had a very quick look > at the GRU driver, but I don't see why it can't be implemented > more like the regular TLB model, and have TLB insertions depend on > the linux pte, and do invalidates _after_ restricting permissions > to the pte. > > Ie. I'd still like to get rid of invalidate_range_begin, and get > rid of invalidate calls from places where permissions are relaxed. Isnt this more a job for paravirt ops if it is so tightly bound to page tables? Are we not adding another similar API? > If we can agree on the API, then I don't see any reason why it can't > go into 2.6.25, unless someome wants more time to review it (but > 2.6.25 release should be quite far away still so there should be quite > a bit of time). API still has rcu issues and the example given for making things sleepable is only working for the aging callback. The most important callback is for try_to_unmao and page_mkclean. This means the API is still not generic enough and likely not extendable as needed in its present form. -- 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/