On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 02:09:41AM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
quoted text
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 12:11:57AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > Sorry, I realise I still didn't get this through my head yet (and also
> > have not seen your patch recently). So I don't know exactly what you
> > are doing...
> 
> The last version was posted here:
> 
> http://marc.info/?l=kvm-devel&m=120321732521533&w=2
> 
> > But why does _anybody_ (why does Christoph's patches) need to invalidate
> > when they are going to be more permissive? This should be done lazily by
> > the driver, I would have thought.
> 
> This can be done lazily by the driver yes. The place where I've an
> invalidate_pages in mprotect however can also become less permissive.

That's OK, because we have to flush tlbs there too.


quoted text
> It's simpler to invalidate always and it's not guaranteed the
> secondary mmu page fault is capable of refreshing the spte across a
> writeprotect fault.

I think we just have to make sure that it _can_ do writeprotect
faults. AFAIKS, that will be possible if the driver registers a
.page_mkwrite handler (actually not quite -- page_mkwrite is fairly
crap, so I have a patch to merge it together with .fault so we get
address information as well). Anyway, I really think we should do
it that way.

quoted text
> In the future this can be changed to
> mprotect_pages though, so no page fault will happen in the secondary
> mmu.

Possibly, but hopefully not needed for performance. Let's wait and
see.
--
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/