From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@qumranet.com>
Subject: [ofa-general] Re: [PATCH 1 of 9] Lock the entire mm to prevent any
	mmu related operation to happen
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 00:16:55 +0200
Message-ID: <20080417221655.GA9287@duo.random>
References: <patchbomb.1207669443@duo.random>
	<ec6d8f91b299cf26cce5.1207669444@duo.random>
	<20080416163337.GJ22493@sgi.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0804161134360.12296@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
	<20080417155157.GC17187@duo.random>
	<20080417163642.GE11364@sgi.com>
	<20080417171443.GM17187@duo.random>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0804171202420.23938@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>, Jack Steiner <steiner@sgi.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>, kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
	Kanoj Sarcar <kanojsarcar@yahoo.com>,
	Roland Dreier <rdreier@cisco.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Avi Kivity <avi@qumranet.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	Robin Holt <holt@sgi.com>, general@lists.openfabrics.org,
	Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>, akpm@linux-foundation.org
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>
Return-path: <general-bounces@lists.openfabrics.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0804171202420.23938@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general>,
	<mailto:general-request@lists.openfabrics.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.openfabrics.org/pipermail/general>
List-Post: <mailto:general@lists.openfabrics.org>
List-Help: <mailto:general-request@lists.openfabrics.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general>,
	<mailto:general-request@lists.openfabrics.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: general-bounces@lists.openfabrics.org
Errors-To: general-bounces@lists.openfabrics.org
List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 12:10:52PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> EMM was/is using a single linked list which allows atomic updates. Looked 
> cleaner to me since doubly linked list must update two pointers.

Cleaner would be if it would provide an abstraction in list.h. The
important is the memory taken by the head for this usage.

> I have not seen docs on the locking so not sure why you use rcu 
> operations here? Isnt the requirement to have either rmap locks or 
> mmap_sem held enough to guarantee the consistency of the doubly linked list?

Yes, exactly, I'm not using rcu anymore.