From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Lameter Subject: [ofa-general] Re: EMM: Require single threadedness for registration. Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 15:41:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <20080401205531.986291575@sgi.com> <20080401205635.793766935@sgi.com> <20080402064952.GF19189@duo.random> <20080402220148.GV19189@duo.random> <20080402221716.GY19189@duo.random> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20080402221716.GY19189@duo.random> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: general-bounces@lists.openfabrics.org Errors-To: general-bounces@lists.openfabrics.org To: Andrea Arcangeli Cc: Nick Piggin , steiner@sgi.com, Peter Zijlstra , linux-mm@kvack.org, Izik Eidus , Kanoj Sarcar , Roland Dreier , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Avi Kivity , kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, daniel.blueman@quadrics.com, Robin Holt , general@lists.openfabrics.org, Hugh Dickins List-Id: linux-mm.kvack.org On Thu, 3 Apr 2008, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > Why can't it fire on the mm_struct where GRU just registered? That > mm_struct existed way before GRU registered, and VM is free to unmap > it w/o mmap_sem if there was any memory pressure. Right. Hmmm... Bad situation. We would have invalidate_start take a lock to prevent registration until _end has run. We could use stop_machine_run to register the notifier.... ;-).