From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754565Ab0GISbj (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jul 2010 14:31:39 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:49956 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752643Ab0GISbh (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jul 2010 14:31:37 -0400 Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2010 20:31:29 +0200 From: Andrea Arcangeli To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Cc: Stefano Stabellini , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: mmu notifier calls in apply_to_page_range() Message-ID: <20100709183129.GG5741@random.random> References: <4C373AEC.6000502@goop.org> <20100709151211.GE13493@random.random> <4C37458B.8040408@goop.org> <20100709162255.GA5741@random.random> <4C375CC8.2030705@goop.org> <20100709173612.GF5741@random.random> <4C375F5F.5000907@goop.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4C375F5F.5000907@goop.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jul 09, 2010 at 10:41:51AM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > On 07/09/2010 10:36 AM, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > I'm not opposed to removing it, I've been wondering if it made any > > sense in the first place but then there was no point not to add > > it. Just calling apply_to_page_range in non blocking context doesn't > > look so good. > > > > That's a good point. It should be safe if the pagetable is already > fully populated; I should double-check that's true in our case. Yes in that case is safe, but it'd be more strict to use pmd/*_offset then.