Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...>, Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...>, Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@...>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...>, Christoph Lameter <clameter@...>, Jack Steiner <steiner@...>, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...>, <kvm-devel@...>, Kanoj Sarcar <kanojsarcar@...>, Roland Dreier <rdreier@...>, Steve Wise <swise@...>, <linux-kernel@...>, Avi Kivity <avi@...>, <linux-mm@...>, <general@...>, Hugh Dickins <hugh@...>, Rusty Russell <rusty@...>, Anthony Liguori <aliguori@...>, Chris Wright <chrisw@...>, Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo@...>, Eric Dumazet <dada1@...>, Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...>
One thing to realize is that most of the time (read: pretty much *always*)
when we have the problem of wanting to sleep inside a spinlock, the
solution is actually to just move the sleeping to outside the lock, and
then have something else that serializes things.
That way, the core code (protected by the spinlock, and in all the hot
paths) doesn't sleep, but the special case code (that wants to sleep) can
have some other model of serialization that allows sleeping, and that
includes as a small part the spinlocked region.
I do not know how XPMEM actually works, or how you use it, but it
seriously sounds like that is how things *should* work. And yes, that
probably means that the mmu-notifiers as they are now are simply not
workable: they'd need to be moved up so that they are inside the mmap
semaphore but not the spinlocks.
Can it be done? I don't know. But I do know that I'm unlikely to accept a
noticeable slowdown in some very core code for a case that affects about
0.00001% of the population. In other words, I think you *have* to do it.
Linus
--
