On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 11:41:29AM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008, Jack Steiner wrote:
>
> > I see what you mean. I need to review to mail to see why this changed
> > but in the original discussions with Christoph, the invalidate_range
> > callouts
> @@ -2033,6 +2034,7 @@ void exit_mmap(struct mm_struct *mm)
> unsigned long end;
>
> /* mm's last user has gone, and its about to be pulled down */
> + mmu_notifier(invalidate_all, mm, 0);
> arch_exit_mmap(mm);
>
The name of the "invalidate_all" callout is not very descr
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 08:24:44PM -0600, Robin Holt wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 07:56:12PM -0600, Jack Steiner wrote:
> > > @@ -2033,6 +2034,7 @@ void exit_mmap(struct mm_struct *mm)
> > > unsigned long end;
> > >
> > > /* mm's last us
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 06:39:19PM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008, Robin Holt wrote:
>
> > Jack has repeatedly pointed out needing an unregister outside the
> > mmap_sem. I still don't see the benefit to not having the lock in the mm.
>
> I never understood why this would
On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 03:17:04AM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 11:23:57AM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > Yes so your invalidate_range is still some sort of dysfunctional
> > optimization? Gazillions of invalidate_page's will have to be executed
> > when tearing d
> GRU
> - Simple additional hardware TLB (possibly covering multiple instances of
> Linux)
> - Needs TLB shootdown when the VM unmaps pages.
> - Determines page address via follow_page (from interrupt context) but can
> fall back to get_user_pages().
> - No page reference possible since no page
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 02:58:51PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > understand the need for invalidate_begin/invalidate_end pairs at all.
>
> The need of the pairs is crystal clear to me: range_begin is needed
> for GRU _but_only_if_ range_end is called after releasing the
> reference that the
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 12:11:57AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 02:58:51PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 09:43:57AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > anything when changing the pte to be _more_ permissive, and I don't
> >
> > Note that in my patch
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 11:39:42AM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> Given Nick's comments I ported my version of the mmu notifiers to
> latest mainline. There are no known bugs AFIK and it's obviously safe
> (nothing is allowed to schedule inside rcu_read_lock taken by
> mmu_notifier() with my patc
> I really want suggestions on Jack's concern about issuing an
> invalidate per pte entry or per-pte instead of per-range. I'll answer
> that in a separate email. For KVM my patch is already close to optimal
> because each single spte invalidate requires a fixed amount of work,
> but for GRU a larg
us because (unfortunately) SN is not ACPI compliant. We plan additional
ACPI support in the future but it will take a while to get there.
I'm checking to see if we have any short term alternatives. More later
--
Thanks
Jack Steiner ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) 651-683-5302
Principal Engine
cribe linux-ia64" in
> the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
Thanks
Jack Steiner ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) 651-683-5302
Principal Engineer SGI - Silicon Graphics, Inc.
-
To unsubscribe
On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 04:20:50PM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>
> > > invalidate_range after populate allows access to memory for which ptes
> > > were zapped and the refcount was released.
> >
> > The last refcount is released by the invalidat
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 02:37:20PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 06:28:05PM -0600, Jack Steiner wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 04:20:50PM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > > On Wed, 30 Jan 2008, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > >
>
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 04:37:49PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 06:29:10PM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > +void mmu_notifier_release(struct mm_struct *mm)
> > +{
> > + struct mmu_notifier *mn;
> > + struct hlist_node *n, *t;
> > +
> > + if (unlikely(!hlist_emp
15 matches
Mail list logo
