On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 08:01:20AM -0500, Robin Holt wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 02:00:56PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 09:20:26AM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > > invalidate_range_start {
> > > spin_lock(&kvm->mmu_lock);
> > >
> > > kvm->invalidate_range_count++;
> > > rmap-invalidate of sptes in range
> > >
> >
> > write_seqlock; write_sequnlock;
>
> I don't think you need it here since invalidate_range_count is already
> elevated which will accomplish the same effect.
Agreed, seqlock only in range_end should be enough. BTW, the fact
seqlock is needed regardless of invalidate_page existing or not,
really makes invalidate_page a no brainer not just from the core VM
point of view, but from the driver point of view too. The
kvm_page_fault logic would be the same even if I remove
invalidate_page from the mmu notifier patch but it'd run slower both
when armed and disarmed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference
Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100.
Use priority code J8TL2D2.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone
_______________________________________________
kvm-devel mailing list
kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
