From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 02:33:23 +0100 From: Andrea Arcangeli Subject: Re: [patch 1/3] mmu_notifier: Core code Message-ID: <20080203013323.GA7185@v2.random> References: <20080131045750.855008281@sgi.com> <20080131045812.553249048@sgi.com> <20080201035249.GE26420@sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Robin Holt , Avi Kivity , Izik Eidus , kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Peter Zijlstra , steiner@sgi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, daniel.blueman@quadrics.com List-ID: On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 07:58:40PM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote: > Ok. Andrea wanted the same because then he can void the begin callouts. Exactly. I hope the page-pin will avoid me having to serialize the KVM page fault against the start/end critical section. BTW, I wonder if the start/end critical section API is intended to forbid scheduling inside it. In short I wonder if GRU can is allowed to take a spinlock in _range_start as last thing before returning, and to release that same spinlock in _range_end as first thing, and not to be forced to use a mutex. -- 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: email@kvack.org