On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 04:14:26PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
We want a full solution and this kind of patching makes the patches
difficuilt to review because later patches revert earlier ones.
I know you rather want to see KVM development stalled for more months
than to get a partial
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 03:44:27PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 04:14:26PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
We want a full solution and this kind of patching makes the patches
difficuilt to review because later patches revert earlier ones.
I know you rather want
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 10:45:36AM -0500, Robin Holt wrote:
XPMEM has passed all regression tests using your version 12 notifiers.
That's great news, thanks! I'd greatly appreciate if you could test
#v13 too as I posted it. It already passed GRU and KVM regressions
tests and it should work fine
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
I know you rather want to see KVM development stalled for more months
than to get a partial solution now that already covers KVM and GRU
with the same API that XPMEM will also use later. It's very unfair on
your side to pretend to stall other
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 11:02:18AM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
We have had this workaround effort done years ago and have been
suffering the ill effects of pinning for years. Had to deal with
Yes. In addition to the pinning, there's lot of additional tlb
flushing work to do in kvm without
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 06:15:45PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
Once I get confirmation that everyone is ok with #v13 I'll push a #v14
before Saturday with that cosmetical error cleaned up and
mmu_notifier_unregister moved at the end (XPMEM will have unregister
don't worry). I expect the
Robin Holt wrote:
an hurry like we are, we can't progress without this. Infact we can
SGI is under an equally strict timeline. We really needed the sleeping
version into 2.6.26. We may still be able to get this accepted by
vendor distros if we make 2.6.27.
The difference is that
# HG changeset patch
# User Andrea Arcangeli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
# Date 1208872186 -7200
# Node ID ac9bb1fb3de2aa5d27210a28edf24f6577094076
# Parent a6672bdeead0d41b2ebd6846f731d43a611645b7
Moves all mmu notifier methods outside the PT lock (first and not last
step to make them sleep capable).
Reverts a part of an earlier patch. Why isnt this merged into 1 of 12?
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference
Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100.
Use
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 01:24:21PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
Reverts a part of an earlier patch. Why isnt this merged into 1 of 12?
To give zero regression risk to 1/12 when MMU_NOTIFIER=y or =n and the
mmu notifiers aren't registered by GRU or KVM. Keep in mind that the
whole point of my
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 01:24:21PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
Reverts a part of an earlier patch. Why isnt this merged into 1 of 12?
To give zero regression risk to 1/12 when MMU_NOTIFIER=y or =n and the
mmu notifiers aren't registered by
11 matches
Mail list logo
