Re: [patch 1/6] mmu_notifier: Core code

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Andrea Arcangeli
Date: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 - 6:59 am

On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 12:28:41PM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:

Not sure why you prefer to waste ram when MMU_NOTIFIER=n, this is a
regression (a minor one though).


It's out of my reach how can you be ok with lock=1. You said you have
to block, if you can deal with lock=1 once, why can't you deal with
lock=1 _always_?


The down_write is garbage. The caller should put it around
mmu_notifier_register if something. The same way the caller should
call synchronize_rcu after mmu_notifier_register if it needs
synchronous behavior from the notifiers. The default version of
mmu_notifier_register shouldn't be cluttered with unnecessary locking.
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[patch 1/6] mmu_notifier: Core code, Christoph Lameter, (Mon Jan 28, 1:28 pm)
Re: [patch 1/6] mmu_notifier: Core code, Christoph Lameter, (Mon Jan 28, 3:06 pm)
Re: [patch 1/6] mmu_notifier: Core code, Robin Holt, (Mon Jan 28, 5:05 pm)
Re: [patch 1/6] mmu_notifier: Core code, Christoph Lameter, (Mon Jan 28, 6:19 pm)
Re: [patch 1/6] mmu_notifier: Core code, Andrea Arcangeli, (Tue Jan 29, 6:59 am)
Re: [patch 1/6] mmu_notifier: Core code, Andrea Arcangeli, (Tue Jan 29, 7:34 am)
Re: [patch 1/6] mmu_notifier: Core code, Robin Holt, (Tue Jan 29, 9:07 am)
Re: [patch 1/6] mmu_notifier: Core code, Christoph Lameter, (Tue Jan 29, 12:49 pm)
Re: [patch 1/6] mmu_notifier: Core code, Avi Kivity, (Tue Jan 29, 1:41 pm)
Re: [patch 1/6] mmu_notifier: Core code, Andy Whitcroft, (Tue Feb 5, 11:05 am)
Re: [patch 1/6] mmu_notifier: Core code, Peter Zijlstra, (Tue Feb 5, 11:17 am)
Re: [patch 1/6] mmu_notifier: Core code, Christoph Lameter, (Tue Feb 5, 11:19 am)