On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 13:22:30 +1100 Benjamin Herrenschmidt <b...@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-03-20 at 19:20 -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote: > > > As long as the races to avoid are between map/unmap vs. access, yes, it > > > -should- be fine, and we used to not do demand faulting on kernel space > > > (but for how long ?). I'm wondering why we don't just stick a ptl in > > > there or is there a good reason why we can't ? > > > > We can - but we usually prefer to avoid unnecessary locking. > > An arch function which locks init_mm.page_table_lock on powerpc, > > but does nothing on others? > > That still means gratuitous differences between how the normal and > kernel page tables are handled. Maybe that's not worth bothering ... So what will we do here? I still have mm-remove-unused-token-argument-from-apply_to_page_range-callback.patch mm-add-apply_to_page_range_batch.patch ioremap-use-apply_to_page_range_batch-for-ioremap_page_range.patch vmalloc-use-plain-pte_clear-for-unmaps.patch vmalloc-use-apply_to_page_range_batch-for-vunmap_page_range.patch vmalloc-use-apply_to_page_range_batch-for-vmap_page_range_noflush.patch vmalloc-use-apply_to_page_range_batch-in-alloc_vm_area.patch xen-mmu-use-apply_to_page_range_batch-in-xen_remap_domain_mfn_range.patch xen-grant-table-use-apply_to_page_range_batch.patch floating around and at some stage they may cause merge problems. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
