[lkml]   [2008]   [Jan]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [patch 0/4] [RFC] MMU Notifiers V1
    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 (unlikely(PageExternalRmap(page)))
    > + mmu_rmap_notifier(invalidate_page, page);
    > +
    > if (!page_mapped(page))
    > ret = SWAP_SUCCESS;
    > return ret;
    > I find the above hard to accept, because the moment you work with
    > physical pages and not "mm+address" I think you couldn't possibly care
    > if page_mapped is true or false, and I think the above notifier should
    > be called _outside_ try_to_unmap. Infact I'd call
    > mmu_rmap_notifier(invalidate_page, page); only if page_unmapped is
    > false and the linux pte is gone already (practically just before the
    > page_count == 2 check and after try_to_unmap).

    try_to_unmap is called from multiple places. The placement here
    also covers f.e. page migration.

    We also need to do this in the page_mkclean case because the permissions
    on an external pte are restricted there. So we need a refault to update
    the pte.

    > I also think it's still worth to debate the rmap based on virtual or
    > physical index. By supporting both secondary-rmap designs at the same
    > time you seem to agree current KVM lightweight rmap implementation is
    > a superior design at least for KVM. But by insisting on your rmap
    > based on physical for your usage, you're implicitly telling us that is
    > a superior design for you. But we know very little of why you can't

    We actually need both version. We have hardware that has a driver without
    rmap that does not sleep. On the other hand XPmem has rmap capability and
    needs to sleep for its notifications.

    > Nevertheless I'm very glad we already fully converged on the
    > set_page_dirty, invalidate-page after ptep_clear_flush/young,
    > etc... and furthermore that you only made very minor modification to
    > my code to add a pair of hooks for the page-based rmap notifiers on
    > top of my patch. So from a functionality POV this is 100% workable
    > already from KVM side!

    Well we still have to review this stuff more and I have a vague feeling
    that not all the multiple hooks that came about because I took the
    mmu_notifier(invalidate_page, ...) out of the macro need to be kept
    because some of them are already covered by the range operations.

     \ /
      Last update: 2008-01-25 19:35    [W:0.022 / U:17.464 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site