From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 13:03:16 -0800 (PST) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [patch 2/6] mmu_notifier: Callbacks to invalidate address ranges In-Reply-To: <20080229201744.GB8091@v2.random> Message-ID: References: <20080228001104.GB8091@v2.random> <20080228005249.GF8091@v2.random> <20080228011020.GG8091@v2.random> <20080229005530.GO8091@v2.random> <20080229131302.GT8091@v2.random> <20080229201744.GB8091@v2.random> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andrea Arcangeli Cc: Nick Piggin , akpm@linux-foundation.org, Robin Holt , Avi Kivity , Izik Eidus , kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Peter Zijlstra , general@lists.openfabrics.org, Steve Wise , Roland Dreier , Kanoj Sarcar , steiner@sgi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, daniel.blueman@quadrics.com List-ID: On Fri, 29 Feb 2008, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > Agreed. I just thought xpmem needed an invalidate-by-page, but > I'm glad if xpmem can go in sync with the KVM/GRU/DRI model in this > regard. That means we need both the anon_vma locks and the i_mmap_lock to become semaphores. I think semaphores are better than mutexes. Rik and Lee saw some performance improvements because list can be traversed in parallel when the anon_vma lock is switched to be a rw lock. Sounds like we get to a conceptually clean version here? -- 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