From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Doug Doan <dougd@cray.com>
Cc: "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"andi@firstfloor.org" <andi@firstfloor.org>,
"lee.schermerhorn@hp.com" <lee.schermerhorn@hp.com>,
"rientjes@google.com" <rientjes@google.com>,
"mel@csn.ul.ie" <mel@csn.ul.ie>,
Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hugetlb: call mmu notifiers on hugepage cow
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2010 11:11:25 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100603111125.8cd6a787.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4C07E800.5010701@cray.com>
On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 10:36:00 -0700
Doug Doan <dougd@cray.com> wrote:
> > Well, specifically it means that
> > mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start/end() implemetnations can no longer
> > take page_table_lock or any lock which nests outside page_table_lock.
> > That lessens flexibility.
> >
> > As the other mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start/end() callsite in this
> > function carefully nested those calls outside page_table_lock, perhaps
> > that was thought to be a significant thing.
>
> Here's my rationale: for the normal page case, the invalidation call is done
> inside a page_table_lock,
It is? Where does that happen?
> so the same should also be done in the huge page case.
> Does it really make sense to call invalidation on one hugepage and have another
> call invalidate the same hugepage while the first call is still not finished?
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Doug Doan <dougd@cray.com>
Cc: "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"andi@firstfloor.org" <andi@firstfloor.org>,
"lee.schermerhorn@hp.com" <lee.schermerhorn@hp.com>,
"rientjes@google.com" <rientjes@google.com>,
"mel@csn.ul.ie" <mel@csn.ul.ie>,
Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hugetlb: call mmu notifiers on hugepage cow
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2010 11:11:25 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100603111125.8cd6a787.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4C07E800.5010701@cray.com>
On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 10:36:00 -0700
Doug Doan <dougd@cray.com> wrote:
> > Well, specifically it means that
> > mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start/end() implemetnations can no longer
> > take page_table_lock or any lock which nests outside page_table_lock.
> > That lessens flexibility.
> >
> > As the other mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start/end() callsite in this
> > function carefully nested those calls outside page_table_lock, perhaps
> > that was thought to be a significant thing.
>
> Here's my rationale: for the normal page case, the invalidation call is done
> inside a page_table_lock,
It is? Where does that happen?
> so the same should also be done in the huge page case.
> Does it really make sense to call invalidation on one hugepage and have another
> call invalidate the same hugepage while the first call is still not finished?
--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-06-03 18:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-05-27 20:43 [PATCH] hugetlb: call mmu notifiers on hugepage cow Doug Doan
2010-05-28 9:59 ` Mel Gorman
2010-05-28 9:59 ` Mel Gorman
2010-05-28 16:39 ` Doug Doan
2010-05-28 16:39 ` Doug Doan
2010-05-28 17:34 ` Mel Gorman
2010-05-28 17:34 ` Mel Gorman
2010-06-02 6:16 ` Andrew Morton
2010-06-02 6:16 ` Andrew Morton
2010-06-02 23:13 ` Doug Doan
2010-06-02 23:13 ` Doug Doan
2010-06-02 23:33 ` Andrew Morton
2010-06-02 23:33 ` Andrew Morton
2010-06-03 17:36 ` Doug Doan
2010-06-03 17:36 ` Doug Doan
2010-06-03 18:11 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2010-06-03 18:11 ` Andrew Morton
2010-06-03 18:35 ` Doug Doan
2010-06-03 18:35 ` Doug Doan
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20100603111125.8cd6a787.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=andrea@redhat.com \
--cc=dougd@cray.com \
--cc=lee.schermerhorn@hp.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mel@csn.ul.ie \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.