From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Hildenbrand Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH v2 00/22] KVM/s390: Hugetlbfs enablement Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:14:49 +0100 Message-ID: <86c5bd00-a552-1737-8db8-3f7b3c21057e@redhat.com> References: <1513169613-13509-1-git-send-email-frankja@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <8f1ca87d-eb66-1b88-5ef1-0123e04bc565@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Archive: List-Post: To: Janosch Frank , kvm@vger.kernel.org Cc: schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, borntraeger@de.ibm.com, dominik.dingel@gmail.com, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org List-ID: >> If we simply split up huge pages when protecting the prefix, we don't >> need gmap_protect_pmd() anymore, and therefore also (at least) not > > We need it for the dirty tracking, no? Indeed, missed that call. But we don't set any notifier bits, that's the important part. > >> >> - s390/mm: Abstract gmap notify bit setting > > Yes, that's not needed then. > >> - s390/mm: add gmap PMD invalidation notification > > We need that one (in parts) because of the protection transfer to user > space. We will be notified on mm pmds. Even if we split a pmd, we will > be notified on a pmd, not on a pte. So we need at least a skeleton that > calls pmdp_notify_split. > > I'm currently preparing a patch that rips out pmd protection with > software bits. I'll attach it when finished, so we can have a look what > can go. > Yes, parts of it. Especially without notifier bits. -- Thanks, David / dhildenb