From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrea Arcangeli Subject: Re: [patch 2/6] mmu_notifier: Callbacks to invalidate address ranges Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 01:55:30 +0100 Message-ID: <20080229005530.GO8091@v2.random> 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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Nick Piggin , steiner@sgi.com, Peter Zijlstra , linux-mm@kvack.org, Kanoj Sarcar , Roland Dreier , Steve Wise , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Avi Kivity , kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, daniel.blueman@quadrics.com, Robin Holt , general@lists.openfabrics.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org To: Christoph Lameter Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: kvm-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: kvm-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org 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). 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 ;). ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/