From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 12:25:21 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: What if a TLB flush needed to sleep? In-Reply-To: <1FE6DD409037234FAB833C420AA843ECE9DF60@orsmsx424.amr.corp.intel.com> Message-ID: References: <1FE6DD409037234FAB833C420AA843ECE9DF60@orsmsx424.amr.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: "Luck, Tony" Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Luck, Tony wrote: > 2) Is it feasible to rearrange the MM code so that we don't > hold any locks while doing a TLB flush? Or should I implement > some sort of spin_only_semaphore? The EMM notifier V2 patchset contains two patches that convert the immap_lock and the anon_vma lock to semaphores. After that much of the TLB flushing is (tlb_finish_mmu, tlb_gather etc) is running without holding any spinlocks. There would need to be additional measures for flushing inherent in macros (like ptep_clear_flush). Currently the pte functions are called under pte lock. -- 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