From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nick Piggin Subject: Re: [PATCH 08 of 11] anon-vma-rwsem Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 22:06:44 +1000 References: <6b384bb988786aa78ef0.1210170958@duo.random> <20080508003838.GA9878@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <20080508003838.GA9878@sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200805132206.47655.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Robin Holt Cc: Linus Torvalds , Andrea Arcangeli , Andrew Morton , Christoph Lameter , Jack Steiner , Nick Piggin , Peter Zijlstra , kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Kanoj Sarcar , Roland Dreier , Steve Wise , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Avi Kivity , linux-mm@kvack.org, general@lists.openfabrics.org, Hugh Dickins , Rusty Russell , Anthony Liguori , Chris Wright , Marcelo Tosatti , Eric Dumazet , "Paul E. McKenney" List-ID: On Thursday 08 May 2008 10:38, Robin Holt wrote: > On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 02:36:57PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Wed, 7 May 2008, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > > I think the spinlock->rwsem conversion is ok under config option, as > > > you can see I complained myself to various of those patches and I'll > > > take care they're in a mergeable state the moment I submit them. What > > > XPMEM requires are different semantics for the methods, and we never > > > had to do any blocking I/O during vmtruncate before, now we have to. > > > > I really suspect we don't really have to, and that it would be better to > > just fix the code that does that. > > That fix is going to be fairly difficult. I will argue impossible. > > First, a little background. SGI allows one large numa-link connected > machine to be broken into seperate single-system images which we call > partitions. > > XPMEM allows, at its most extreme, one process on one partition to > grant access to a portion of its virtual address range to processes on > another partition. Those processes can then fault pages and directly > share the memory. > > In order to invalidate the remote page table entries, we need to message > (uses XPC) to the remote side. The remote side needs to acquire the > importing process's mmap_sem and call zap_page_range(). Between the > messaging and the acquiring a sleeping lock, I would argue this will > require sleeping locks in the path prior to the mmu_notifier invalidate_* > callouts(). Why do you need to take mmap_sem in order to shoot down pagetables of the process? It would be nice if this can just be done without sleeping. -- 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