Re: [patch 2/6] mmu_notifier: Callbacks to invalidate address ranges

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@...>
Cc: <akpm@...>, Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@...>, Robin Holt <holt@...>, Avi Kivity <avi@...>, Izik Eidus <izike@...>, <kvm-devel@...>, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...>, <general@...>, Steve Wise <swise@...>, Roland Dreier <rdreier@...>, Kanoj Sarcar <kanojsarcar@...>, <steiner@...>, <linux-kernel@...>, <linux-mm@...>, <daniel.blueman@...>
Date: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 - 4:54 am

On Friday 15 February 2008 17:49, Christoph Lameter wrote:

This whole thing would be much better if you didn't rely on the page
lock at all, but either a) used the same locking as Linux does for its
ptes/tlbs, or b) have some locking that is private to the mmu notifier
code. Then there is not all this new stuff that has to be understood in
the core VM.

Also, why do you have to "invalidate" ranges when switching to a
_more_ permissive state? This stuff should basically be the same as
(a subset of) the TLB flushing API AFAIKS. Anything more is a pretty
big burden to put in the core VM.

See my alternative patch I posted -- I can't see why it won't work
just like a TLB.

As far as sleeping inside callbacks goes... I think there are big
problems with the patch (the sleeping patch and the external rmap
patch). I don't think it is workable in its current state. Either
we have to make some big changes to the core VM, or we have to turn
some locks into sleeping locks to do it properly AFAIKS. Neither
one is good.

But anyway, I don't really think the two approaches (Andrea's
notifiers vs sleeping/xrmap) should be tangled up too much. I
think Andrea's can possibly be quite unintrusive and useful very
soon.

--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[patch 2/6] mmu_notifier: Callbacks to invalidate address ra..., Christoph Lameter, (Fri Feb 15, 2:49 am)
Re: [patch 2/6] mmu_notifier: Callbacks to invalidate addres..., Christoph Lameter, (Wed Feb 27, 6:35 pm)
Re: [patch 2/6] mmu_notifier: Callbacks to invalidate addres..., Christoph Lameter, (Wed Feb 27, 8:14 pm)
Re: [patch 2/6] mmu_notifier: Callbacks to invalidate addres..., Christoph Lameter, (Wed Feb 27, 9:03 pm)
Re: [patch 2/6] mmu_notifier: Callbacks to invalidate addres..., Christoph Lameter, (Thu Feb 28, 2:43 pm)
Re: [patch 2/6] mmu_notifier: Callbacks to invalidate addres..., Christoph Lameter, (Thu Feb 28, 8:59 pm)
Re: [patch 2/6] mmu_notifier: Callbacks to invalidate addres..., Christoph Lameter, (Fri Feb 29, 3:55 pm)
Re: [patch 2/6] mmu_notifier: Callbacks to invalidate addres..., Christoph Lameter, (Fri Feb 29, 5:03 pm)
Re: [patch 2/6] mmu_notifier: Callbacks to invalidate addres..., Christoph Lameter, (Fri Feb 29, 5:34 pm)
Re: [patch 2/6] mmu_notifier: Callbacks to invalidate addres..., Christoph Lameter, (Fri Feb 29, 6:12 pm)
Re: [patch 2/6] mmu_notifier: Callbacks to invalidate addres..., Christoph Lameter, (Fri Feb 29, 5:29 pm)
Re: [patch 2/6] mmu_notifier: Callbacks to invalidate addres..., Christoph Lameter, (Wed Feb 27, 8:10 pm)
Re: [patch 2/6] mmu_notifier: Callbacks to invalidate addres..., Christoph Lameter, (Wed Feb 27, 6:39 pm)
Re: [patch 2/6] mmu_notifier: Callbacks to invalidate addres..., Nick Piggin, (Tue Feb 19, 4:54 am)
Re: [patch 2/6] mmu_notifier: Callbacks to invalidate addres..., Christoph Lameter, (Wed Feb 27, 6:23 pm)
Re: [patch 2/6] mmu_notifier: Callbacks to invalidate addres..., Christoph Lameter, (Sat Feb 16, 3:26 pm)