On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 05:35:28PM -0600, Robin Holt wrote:
> No, we need a callout when we are becoming more restrictive, but not
> when becoming more permissive. I would have to guess that is the case
> for any of these callouts. It is for both GRU and XPMEM. I would
> expect the same is true
On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 06:21:45PM -0600, Robin Holt wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 04:05:08PM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > Are you saying that you get the callback when transitioning from a read
> > only to a read write pte on the *same* page?
>
> I believe that is what we saw. We have
On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 04:05:08PM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, Robin Holt wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 03:19:32PM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > > On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, Robin Holt wrote:
> > >
> > > > We are getting this callout when we transition the pte from
On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, Robin Holt wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 03:19:32PM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, Robin Holt wrote:
> >
> > > We are getting this callout when we transition the pte from a read-only
> > > to read-write. Jack and I can not see a reason we would nee
On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 03:19:32PM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, Robin Holt wrote:
>
> > We are getting this callout when we transition the pte from a read-only
> > to read-write. Jack and I can not see a reason we would need that
> > callout. It is causing problems for x
On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, Robin Holt wrote:
> We are getting this callout when we transition the pte from a read-only
> to read-write. Jack and I can not see a reason we would need that
> callout. It is causing problems for xpmem in that a write fault goes
> to get_user_pages which gets back to do_wp_
Christoph,
The following code in do_wp_page is a problem.
We are getting this callout when we transition the pte from a read-only
to read-write. Jack and I can not see a reason we would need that
callout. It is causing problems for xpmem in that a write fault goes
to get_user_pages which gets b
Argh. Did not see this soon enougn. Maybe this one is better since it
avoids the additional unlocks?
On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, Robin Holt wrote:
> do_wp_page can reach the _end callout without passing the _begin
> callout. This prevents making the _end unles the _begin has also
> been made.
>
> Inde
do_wp_page can reach the _end callout without passing the _begin
callout. This prevents making the _end unles the _begin has also
been made.
Index: mmu_notifiers-cl-v5/mm/memory.c
===
--- mmu_notifiers-cl-v5.orig/mm/memory.c2
The invalidation of address ranges in a mm_struct needs to be
performed when pages are removed or permissions etc change.
invalidate_range_begin/end() is frequently called with only mmap_sem
held. If invalidate_range_begin() is called with locks held then we
pass a flag into invalidate_range() to
The invalidation of address ranges in a mm_struct needs to be
performed when pages are removed or permissions etc change.
invalidate_range() is generally called with mmap_sem held but
no spinlocks are active.
Exceptions:
We hold i_mmap_lock in __unmap_hugepage_range and
sometimes in zap_page_ran
11 matches
Mail list logo
