lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Feb]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateMon, 4 Feb 2008 22:11:24 -0800 (PST)
FromChristoph Lameter <>
SubjectRe: [PATCH] mmu notifiers #v5
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 11:09:01AM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > 
> > > > Right but that pin requires taking a refcount which we cannot do.
> > > 
> > > GRU can use my patch without the pin. XPMEM obviously can't use my
> > > patch as my invalidate_page[s] are under the PT lock (a feature to fit
> > > GRU/KVM in the simplest way), this is why an incremental patch adding
> > > invalidate_range_start/end would be required to support XPMEM too.
> > 
> > Doesnt the kernel in some situations release the page before releasing the 
> > pte lock? Then there will be an external pte pointing to a page that may 
> > now have a different use. Its really bad if that pte does allow writes.
> 
> Sure the kernel does that most of the time, which is for example why I
> had to use invalidate_page instead of invalidate_pages inside
> zap_pte_range. Zero problems with that (this is also the exact reason
> why I mentioned the tlb flushing code would need changes to convert
> some page in pages).

Zero problems only if you find having a single callout for every page 
acceptable. So the invalidate_range in your patch is only working 
sometimes. And even if it works then it has to be used on 2M range. Seems 
to be a bit fragile and needlessly complex.

"conversion of some page in pages"? A proposal to defer the freeing of the 
pages until after the pte_unlock?



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-02-05 07:13    [from the cache]
©2003-2008