Re: [uml-user] [PATCH v3 2/2] powerpc/mm: Tracking vDSO remap

2015-03-28 Thread Laurent Dufour
On 26/03/2015 15:17, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Laurent Dufour wrote: > >>> I argue we should use the right condition to clear vdso_base: if >>> the vDSO gets at least partially unmapped. Otherwise there's >>> little point in the whole patch: either correctly track whether >>> the vDSO is OK, o

Re: [uml-user] [PATCH v3 2/2] powerpc/mm: Tracking vDSO remap

2015-03-28 Thread Benjamin Herrenschmidt
On Thu, 2015-03-26 at 10:43 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > > On Wed, 2015-03-25 at 19:36 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > * Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > > > > +#define __HAVE_ARCH_REMAP > > > > > +static inline void arch_remap(struct mm_struct *mm, > > > > > +

Re: [uml-user] [PATCH v3 2/2] powerpc/mm: Tracking vDSO remap

2015-03-26 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > > +#define __HAVE_ARCH_REMAP > > > +static inline void arch_remap(struct mm_struct *mm, > > > + unsigned long old_start, unsigned long old_end, > > > + unsigned long new_start, unsigned long new_end) > > > +{ > > > +

Re: [uml-user] [PATCH v3 2/2] powerpc/mm: Tracking vDSO remap

2015-03-26 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Ingo Molnar wrote: > > +#define __HAVE_ARCH_REMAP > > +static inline void arch_remap(struct mm_struct *mm, > > + unsigned long old_start, unsigned long old_end, > > + unsigned long new_start, unsigned long new_end) > > +{ > > + /* > > +* mr

Re: [uml-user] [PATCH v3 2/2] powerpc/mm: Tracking vDSO remap

2015-03-26 Thread Benjamin Herrenschmidt
On Wed, 2015-03-25 at 19:33 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Laurent Dufour wrote: > > > +static inline void arch_unmap(struct mm_struct *mm, > > + struct vm_area_struct *vma, > > + unsigned long start, unsigned long end) > > +{ > > + if (start <= mm->context.vd

Re: [uml-user] [PATCH v3 2/2] powerpc/mm: Tracking vDSO remap

2015-03-26 Thread Benjamin Herrenschmidt
On Wed, 2015-03-25 at 19:36 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > +#define __HAVE_ARCH_REMAP > > > +static inline void arch_remap(struct mm_struct *mm, > > > + unsigned long old_start, unsigned long old_end, > > > + unsigned long new_

Re: [uml-user] [PATCH v3 2/2] powerpc/mm: Tracking vDSO remap

2015-03-26 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Wed, 2015-03-25 at 19:36 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > > +#define __HAVE_ARCH_REMAP > > > > +static inline void arch_remap(struct mm_struct *mm, > > > > + unsigned long old_start, unsigned long > >

Re: [uml-user] [PATCH v3 2/2] powerpc/mm: Tracking vDSO remap

2015-03-26 Thread Laurent Dufour
On 26/03/2015 10:48, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > +#define __HAVE_ARCH_REMAP +static inline void arch_remap(struct mm_struct *mm, +unsigned long old_start, unsigned long old_end, +unsigned long new_st

Re: [uml-user] [PATCH v3 2/2] powerpc/mm: Tracking vDSO remap

2015-03-26 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Laurent Dufour wrote: > > I argue we should use the right condition to clear vdso_base: if > > the vDSO gets at least partially unmapped. Otherwise there's > > little point in the whole patch: either correctly track whether > > the vDSO is OK, or don't ... > > That's a good option, but it

Re: [uml-user] [PATCH v3 2/2] powerpc/mm: Tracking vDSO remap

2015-03-26 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Laurent Dufour wrote: > +static inline void arch_unmap(struct mm_struct *mm, > + struct vm_area_struct *vma, > + unsigned long start, unsigned long end) > +{ > + if (start <= mm->context.vdso_base && mm->context.vdso_base < end) > + mm->c

Re: [uml-user] [PATCH v3 2/2] powerpc/mm: Tracking vDSO remap

2015-03-26 Thread Laurent Dufour
On 26/03/2015 10:43, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > >> On Wed, 2015-03-25 at 19:36 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: >>> * Ingo Molnar wrote: >>> > +#define __HAVE_ARCH_REMAP > +static inline void arch_remap(struct mm_struct *mm, > + unsigned