From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:59:59 -0800 (PST) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [patch 2/6] mmu_notifier: Callbacks to invalidate address ranges In-Reply-To: <20080229005530.GO8091@v2.random> Message-ID: References: <20080215064859.384203497@sgi.com> <20080215064932.620773824@sgi.com> <200802201008.49933.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> <20080228001104.GB8091@v2.random> <20080228005249.GF8091@v2.random> <20080228011020.GG8091@v2.random> <20080229005530.GO8091@v2.random> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andrea Arcangeli Cc: Nick Piggin , 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 List-ID: On Fri, 29 Feb 2008, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 10:43:54AM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > What about invalidate_page()? > > That would just spin waiting an ack (just like the smp-tlb-flushing > invalidates in numa already does). And thus the device driver may stop receiving data on a UP system? It will never get the ack. > Thinking more about this, we could also parallelize it with an > invalidate_page_before/end. If it takes 1usec to flush remotely, > scheduling would be overkill, but spending 1usec in a while loop isn't > nice if we can parallelize that 1usec with the ipi-tlb-flush. Not sure > if it makes sense... it certainly would be quick to add it (especially > thanks to _notify ;). invalidate_page_before/end could be realized as an invalidate_range_begin/end on a page sized range? -- 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