On Fri, 25 Jan 2008, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:

quoted text
> On a technical merit this still partially makes me sick and I think
> it's the last issue to debate.
> 
> @@ -971,6 +974,9 @@ int try_to_unmap(struct page *page, int 
>         else
>                 ret = try_to_unmap_file(page, migration);
> 
> +       if (unlikely(PageExternalRmap(page)))
> +               mmu_rmap_notifier(invalidate_page, page);
> +
>         if (!page_mapped(page))
>                 ret = SWAP_SUCCESS;
>         return ret;
> 
> I find the above hard to accept, because the moment you work with
> physical pages and not "mm+address" I think you couldn't possibly care
> if page_mapped is true or false, and I think the above notifier should
> be called _outside_ try_to_unmap. Infact I'd call
> mmu_rmap_notifier(invalidate_page, page); only if page_unmapped is
> false and the linux pte is gone already (practically just before the
> page_count == 2 check and after try_to_unmap).

try_to_unmap is called from multiple places. The placement here
also covers f.e. page migration.

We also need to do this in the page_mkclean case because the permissions
on an external pte are restricted there. So we need a refault to update
the pte.

quoted text
> I also think it's still worth to debate the rmap based on virtual or
> physical index. By supporting both secondary-rmap designs at the same
> time you seem to agree current KVM lightweight rmap implementation is
> a superior design at least for KVM. But by insisting on your rmap
> based on physical for your usage, you're implicitly telling us that is
> a superior design for you. But we know very little of why you can't

We actually need both version. We have hardware that has a driver without 
rmap that does not sleep. On the other hand XPmem has rmap capability and 
needs to sleep for its notifications.

quoted text
> Nevertheless I'm very glad we already fully converged on the
> set_page_dirty, invalidate-page after ptep_clear_flush/young,
> etc... and furthermore that you only made very minor modification to
> my code to add a pair of hooks for the page-based rmap notifiers on
> top of my patch. So from a functionality POV this is 100% workable
> already from KVM side!

Well we still have to review this stuff more and I have a vague feeling 
that not all the multiple hooks that came about because I took the 
mmu_notifier(invalidate_page, ...) out of the macro need to be kept 
because some of them are already covered by the range operations.


--
unsubscribe notice
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/