From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <480FA4A9.4090403@qumranet.com> Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 00:05:45 +0300 From: Avi Kivity MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 04 of 12] Moves all mmu notifier methods outside the PT lock (first and not last References: <20080422224048.GR24536@duo.random> <20080423134427.GW24536@duo.random> <20080423154536.GV30298@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <20080423154536.GV30298@sgi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Robin Holt Cc: Andrea Arcangeli , Christoph Lameter , Nick Piggin , Jack Steiner , Peter Zijlstra , kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Kanoj Sarcar , Roland Dreier , Steve Wise , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, general@lists.openfabrics.org, Hugh Dickins , akpm@linux-foundation.org, Rusty Russell List-ID: Robin Holt wrote: >> an hurry like we are, we can't progress without this. Infact we can >> > > SGI is under an equally strict timeline. We really needed the sleeping > version into 2.6.26. We may still be able to get this accepted by > vendor distros if we make 2.6.27. > The difference is that the non-sleeping variant can be shown not to affect stability or performance, even if configed in, as long as its not used. The sleeping variant will raise performance and stability concerns. I have zero objections to sleeping mmu notifiers; I only object to tying the schedules of the two together. -- Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic. -- 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