On Sun, Apr 06, 2008 at 10:45:41PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> That depends on what the notifier is being used for. Some serialization
> with the external mappings has to be done anyways. And its cleaner to have
As far as I can tell no, you don't need to serialize against the
secondary mmu
On Sat, 5 Apr 2008, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> In short when working with single pages it's a waste to block the
> secondary-mmu page fault, because it's zero cost to invalidate_page
> before put_page. Not even GRU need to do that.
That depends on what the notifier is being used for. Some serializ
On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 03:06:18PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> Adds some comments. Still objectionable is the multiple ways of
> invalidating pages in #v11. Callout now has similar locking to emm.
range_begin exists because range_end is called after the page has
already been freed. invalidat
I am always the guy doing the cleanup after Andrea it seems. Sigh.
Here is the mm_lock/mm_unlock logic separated out for easier review.
Adds some comments. Still objectionable is the multiple ways of
invalidating pages in #v11. Callout now has similar locking to emm.
From: Christoph Lameter <[EMA
This should guarantee that nobody can register when any of the mmu
notifiers is running avoiding all the races including guaranteeing
range_start not to be missed. I'll adapt the other patches to provide
the sleeping-feature on top of this (only needed by XPMEM) soon. KVM
seems to run fine on top o
