On Tue, 19 Feb 2008, Nick Piggin wrote:
I thought that could be used by a non-sleeping user (not intending
to try supporting sleeping users). If it is useless then it should
go away (BTW. I didn't see your recent patch, some of my confusion
I think stems from Christoph's novel way of merging
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008, Nick Piggin wrote:
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.
Correct. If you find such places then we can avoid the invalidates there.
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 05:40:50PM -0600, Jack Steiner wrote:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 12:11:57AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 02:58:51PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 09:43:57AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
anything when changing the pte to be
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 02:09:41AM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
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
Well I started reviewing the mmu notifier code, but it is kind of hard to
know what you're talking about just by reading through code and not trying
your suggestions for yourself...
So I implemented mmu notifiers slightly differently. Andrea's mmu notifiers
are rather similar. However I have
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 09:43:57AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
So I implemented mmu notifiers slightly differently. Andrea's mmu notifiers
are rather similar. However I have tried to make a point of minimising the
impact the the core mm/. I don't see why we need to invalidate or flush
anything
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 09:43:57AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
are rather similar. However I have tried to make a point of minimising the
impact the the core mm/. I don't see why we need to invalidate or flush
I also tried hard to minimise the impact of the core mm/, I also
argued with Christoph
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 02:58:51PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
understand the need for invalidate_begin/invalidate_end pairs at all.
The need of the pairs is crystal clear to me: range_begin is needed
for GRU _but_only_if_ range_end is called after releasing the
reference that the VM
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 02:58:51PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 09:43:57AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
anything when changing the pte to be _more_ permissive, and I don't
Note that in my patch the invalidate_pages in mprotect can be
trivially switched to a
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 08:27:25AM -0600, Jack Steiner wrote:
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 02:58:51PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
understand the need for invalidate_begin/invalidate_end pairs at all.
The need of the pairs is crystal clear to me: range_begin is needed
for GRU
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 02:58:51PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 09:43:57AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
are rather similar. However I have tried to make a point of minimising the
impact the the core mm/. I don't see why we need to invalidate or flush
I also tried
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 12:11:57AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 02:58:51PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 09:43:57AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
anything when changing the pte to be _more_ permissive, and I don't
Note that in my patch the
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 11:59:23PM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
That's why I don't understand the need for the pairs: it should be
done like this.
Yes, except it can't be done like this for xpmem.
OK, I didn't see the invalidate_pages call...
See the last patch I posted to Andrew, you've
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:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 01:52:06AM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 12:04:27AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
OK (thanks to Robin as well). Now I understand why you are using it,
but I don't understand why you don't defer new TLBs after the point
where the linux pte
15 matches
Mail list logo
