From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 14:09:12 +0200 From: Nick Piggin Subject: Re: [patch 3/3] mm: fault handler to replace nopage and populate Message-ID: <20061009120912.GE26824@wotan.suse.de> References: <1160351174.14601.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20061009102635.GC3487@wotan.suse.de> <1160391014.10229.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20061009110007.GA3592@wotan.suse.de> <1160392214.10229.19.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20061009111906.GA26824@wotan.suse.de> <1160393579.10229.24.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20061009114527.GB26824@wotan.suse.de> <1160394571.10229.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20061009115836.GC26824@wotan.suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20061009115836.GC26824@wotan.suse.de> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Cc: Andrew Morton , Linux Memory Management , Linux Kernel List-ID: On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 01:58:36PM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > > > > It also needs update_mmu_cache() I suppose. > > > > > > > > > > Hmm, but it might not be called from a pagefault. Can we get away > > > > > with not calling it? Or is it required by some architectures? > > > > > > > > I think some architectures might be upset if it's not called... > > > > > > But would any get upset if it is called from !pagefault path? > > > > Probably not... the PTE has been filled so it should be safe, but then, > > I don't know the details of what non-ppc archs do with that callback. I guess we can make the rule that it only be called from the ->fault handler anyway. If they want that functionality from ->mmap, then they can use remap_pfn_range, because it isn't so performance critical. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org