Re: [patch 2/4] 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: Robin Holt <holt@...>, Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@...>, Avi Kivity <avi@...>, Izik Eidus <izike@...>, <kvm-devel@...>, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...>, <steiner@...>, <linux-kernel@...>, <linux-mm@...>, <daniel.blueman@...>
Date: Friday, February 1, 2008 - 8:38 pm

On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 06:21:45PM -0600, Robin Holt wrote:

I hate it when I am confused.  I misunderstood what Dean had been saying.
After I looked at his test case and remembering his screen at the time
we were discussing, I am nearly positive that both the parent and child
were still running (no exec, no exit).  We would therefore have two refs
on the page and, yes, be changing the pte which would warrant the callout.
Now I really need to think this through more.  Sounds like a good thing
for Monday.

Thanks,
Robin
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: [patch 2/4] mmu_notifier: Callbacks to invalidate addres..., Robin Holt, (Fri Feb 1, 8:38 pm)