Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 09:56:06PM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
Andrea's mmu_notifier #4 - RFC V1
- Merge subsystem rmap based with Linux rmap based approach
- Move Linux rmap based notifiers out of macro
- Try to account for what locks are held while the
On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 06:10:39PM +0200, Izik Eidus wrote:
i dont understand how is that better than notification on tlb flush?
I certainly agree. The quoted call wasn't actually the one that could
be moved in a single place in the .h file though. But the 4/4 patch
could be reduced to a few
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
With regard to the synchronize_rcu troubles they also be left to the
notifier-user to solve. Certainly having the synchronize_rcu like in
Ahh. Ok.
-
This SF.net email is
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
So I'd like to know what can we do to help to merge the 4 patches from
Christoph in mainline, I'd appreciate comments on them so we can help
to address any outstanding issue!
There are still some pending issues (RCU troubles). I will post V2 today.
On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 09:56:06PM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
Andrea's mmu_notifier #4 - RFC V1
- Merge subsystem rmap based with Linux rmap based approach
- Move Linux rmap based notifiers out of macro
- Try to account for what locks are held while the notifiers are
called.
-
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
Also, wouldn't there be a problem with something trying to use that
interface to keep in sync a secondary device MMU such as the DRM or
other accelerators, which might need virtual address based
invalidation ?
Yes just doing the rmap based
On Fri, 2008-01-25 at 12:42 +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 09:56:06PM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
Andrea's mmu_notifier #4 - RFC V1
- Merge subsystem rmap based with Linux rmap based approach
- Move Linux rmap based notifiers out of macro
- Try to account
On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 12:42:29PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
On a technical merit this still partially makes me sick and I think
it's the last issue to debate.
@@ -971,6 +974,9 @@ int try_to_unmap(struct page *page, int
else
ret = try_to_unmap_file(page,
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
On a technical merit this still partially makes me sick and I think
it's the last issue to debate.
@@ -971,6 +974,9 @@ int try_to_unmap(struct page *page, int
else
ret = try_to_unmap_file(page, migration);
+ if
