From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 00:11:57 +0100 From: Nick Piggin Subject: Re: [patch] my mmu notifiers Message-ID: <20080219231157.GC18912@wotan.suse.de> References: <20080219084357.GA22249@wotan.suse.de> <20080219135851.GI7128@v2.random> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080219135851.GI7128@v2.random> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andrea Arcangeli Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, Robin Holt , Avi Kivity , Izik Eidus , kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Peter Zijlstra , general@lists.openfabrics.org, Steve Wise , Roland Dreier , Kanoj Sarcar , steiner@sgi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, daniel.blueman@quadrics.com, Christoph Lameter List-ID: 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 the invalidate_pages in mprotect can be > trivially switched to a mprotect_pages with proper params. This will > prevent page faults completely in the secondary MMU (there will only > be tlb misses after the tlb flush just like for the core linux pte), > and it'll allow all the secondary MMU pte blocks (512/1024 at time > with my PT lock design) to be updated to have proper permissions > matching the core linux pte. Sorry, I realise I still didn't get this through my head yet (and also have not seen your patch recently). So I don't know exactly what you are doing... But why does _anybody_ (why does Christoph's patches) need to invalidate when they are going to be more permissive? This should be done lazily by the driver, I would have thought. -- 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