Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 04:38:49PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
This is arch independent code, I'm surprised mmu_lock is visible here?
>>> The mmu_lock is arch independent as far as I can tell. Pretty much
>>> like the mm->page_table_l
On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 04:38:49PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>>
>>> This is arch independent code, I'm surprised mmu_lock is visible here?
>>>
>>
>> The mmu_lock is arch independent as far as I can tell. Pretty much
>> like the mm->page_table_lock is also independent.
Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>
>> This is arch independent code, I'm surprised mmu_lock is visible here?
>>
>
> The mmu_lock is arch independent as far as I can tell. Pretty much
> like the mm->page_table_lock is also independent. All archs will have
> some form of shadow pagetables in software or
On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 03:47:28PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>> This adds locking to the memslots so they can be looked up with only
>> the mmu_lock. Entries with memslot->userspace_addr have to be ignored
>> because they're not fully inserted yet.
>>
>>
> What is the mo
Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> This adds locking to the memslots so they can be looked up with only
> the mmu_lock. Entries with memslot->userspace_addr have to be ignored
> because they're not fully inserted yet.
>
>
What is the motivation for this? Calls from mmu notifiers that don't
have mmap_se
