Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH 00 of 12] mmu notifier #v13

2008-04-23 Thread Andrea Arcangeli
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 01:30:53PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: One solution would be to separate the invalidate_page() callout into a patch at the very end that can be omitted. AFACIT There is no compelling reason to have this callback and it complicates the API for the device driver

[kvm-devel] [PATCH 00 of 12] mmu notifier #v13

2008-04-22 Thread Andrea Arcangeli
Hello, This is the latest and greatest version of the mmu notifier patch #v13. Changes are mainly in the mm_lock that uses sort() suggested by Christoph. This reduces the complexity from O(N**2) to O(N*log(N)). I folded the mm_lock functionality together with the mmu-notifier-core 1/12 patch to

Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH 00 of 12] mmu notifier #v13

2008-04-22 Thread Robin Holt
I believe the differences between your patch set and Christoph's need to be understood and a compromise approach agreed upon. Those differences, as I understand them, are: 1) invalidate_page: You retain an invalidate_page() callout. I believe we have progressed that discussion to the point

Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH 00 of 12] mmu notifier #v13

2008-04-22 Thread Andrea Arcangeli
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 01:22:13PM -0500, Robin Holt wrote: 1) invalidate_page: You retain an invalidate_page() callout. I believe we have progressed that discussion to the point that it requires some direction for Andrew, Linus, or somebody in authority. The basics of the difference

Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH 00 of 12] mmu notifier #v13

2008-04-22 Thread Robin Holt
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 08:43:35PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 01:22:13PM -0500, Robin Holt wrote: 1) invalidate_page: You retain an invalidate_page() callout. I believe we have progressed that discussion to the point that it requires some direction for Andrew,

Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH 00 of 12] mmu notifier #v13

2008-04-22 Thread Christoph Lameter
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: My patch order and API backward compatible extension over the patchset is done to allow 2.6.26 to fully support KVM/GRU and 2.6.27 to support XPMEM as well. KVM/GRU won't notice any difference once the support for XPMEM is added, but even if the

Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH 00 of 12] mmu notifier #v13

2008-04-22 Thread Christoph Lameter
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008, Robin Holt wrote: putting it back into your patch/agreeing to it remaining in Andrea's patch? If not, I think we can put this issue aside until Andrew gets out of the merge window and can decide it. Either way, the patches become much more similar with this in. One

Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH 00 of 12] mmu notifier #v13

2008-04-22 Thread Jack Steiner
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 03:51:16PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: Hello, This is the latest and greatest version of the mmu notifier patch #v13. FWIW, I have updated the GRU driver to use this patch (plus the fixeups). No problems. AFAICT, everything works. --- jack