On Sat, 26 Jan 2008, Robin Holt wrote: > > No you cannot do that because there are still callbacks that come later. > > The invalidate_all may lead to invalidate_range() doing nothing for this > > mm. The ops notifier and the freeing of the structure has to wait until > > release(). > > Could you be a little more clear here? If you are saying that the other > callbacks will need to do work? I can assure you we will clean up those > pages and raise memory protections. It will also be done in a much more > efficient fashion than the individual callouts.
No the other callbacks need to work in the sense that they can be called. You could have them do nothing after an invalidate_all(). But you cannot release the allocated structs needed for list traversal etc. > If, on the other hand, you are saying we can not because of the way > we traverse the list, can we return a result indicating to the caller > we would like to be unregistered and then the mmu_notifier code do the > remove followed by a call to the release notifier? You would need to release the resources when the release notifier is called. > > That does not sync with the current scheme of the invalidate_range() > > hooks. We would have to do a global invalidate early and then place the > > other invalidate_range hooks in such a way that none is called in later in > > process exit handling. > > But if the notifier is removed from the list following the invalidate_all > callout, there would be no additional callouts. Hmmm.... Okay did not think about that. Then you would need to do a synchronize_rcu() in invalidate_all()? ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ kvm-devel mailing list kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
