Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 20 Feb 2008 02:09:41 +0100 | From | Andrea Arcangeli <> | Subject | Re: [patch] my mmu notifiers |
| |
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 12:11:57AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote: > Sorry, I realise I still didn't get this through my head yet (and also > have not seen your patch recently). So I don't know exactly what you > are doing...
The last version was posted here:
http://marc.info/?l=kvm-devel&m=120321732521533&w=2
> But why does _anybody_ (why does Christoph's patches) need to invalidate > when they are going to be more permissive? This should be done lazily by > the driver, I would have thought.
This can be done lazily by the driver yes. The place where I've an invalidate_pages in mprotect however can also become less permissive. It's simpler to invalidate always and it's not guaranteed the secondary mmu page fault is capable of refreshing the spte across a writeprotect fault. In the future this can be changed to mprotect_pages though, so no page fault will happen in the secondary mmu.
| |