From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753745Ab0GIRlx (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jul 2010 13:41:53 -0400 Received: from claw.goop.org ([74.207.240.146]:58250 "EHLO claw.goop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751894Ab0GIRlw (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jul 2010 13:41:52 -0400 Message-ID: <4C375F5F.5000907@goop.org> Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2010 10:41:51 -0700 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.10) Gecko/20100621 Fedora/3.0.5-1.fc13 Lightning/1.0b2pre Thunderbird/3.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrea Arcangeli CC: Stefano Stabellini , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: mmu notifier calls in apply_to_page_range() 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> In-Reply-To: <20100709173612.GF5741@random.random> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. J