From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: [ofa-general] Re: [PATCH 04 of 12] Moves all mmu notifier methods outside the PT lock (first and not last Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 00:05:45 +0300 Message-ID: <480FA4A9.4090403@qumranet.com> References: <20080422224048.GR24536@duo.random> <20080423134427.GW24536@duo.random> <20080423154536.GV30298@sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Nick Piggin , Rusty Russell , Andrea Arcangeli , Peter Zijlstra , kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Kanoj Sarcar , Roland Dreier , Jack Steiner , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, general@lists.openfabrics.org, Hugh Dickins , akpm@linux-foundation.org, Christoph Lameter To: Robin Holt Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20080423154536.GV30298@sgi.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: general-bounces@lists.openfabrics.org Errors-To: general-bounces@lists.openfabrics.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org Robin Holt wrote: >> an hurry like we are, we can't progress without this. Infact we can >> > > SGI is under an equally strict timeline. We really needed the sleeping > version into 2.6.26. We may still be able to get this accepted by > vendor distros if we make 2.6.27. > The difference is that the non-sleeping variant can be shown not to affect stability or performance, even if configed in, as long as its not used. The sleeping variant will raise performance and stability concerns. I have zero objections to sleeping mmu notifiers; I only object to tying the schedules of the two together. -- Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.