On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 11:48:27 +0100 Andrea Arcangeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +void kvm_mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end(struct mmu_notifier *mn,
> + struct mm_struct *mm,
> + unsigned long start, unsigned long
> end,
> + int lock)
> +{
> + for (; start < end; start += PAGE_SIZE)
> + kvm_mmu_notifier_invalidate_page(mn, mm, start);
> +}
> +
> +static const struct mmu_notifier_ops kvm_mmu_notifier_ops = {
> + .invalidate_page = kvm_mmu_notifier_invalidate_page,
> + .age_page = kvm_mmu_notifier_age_page,
> + .invalidate_range_end = kvm_mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end,
> +};
So this doesn't implement ->invalidate_range_start().
By what means does it prevent new mappings from being established in the
range after core mm has tried to call ->invalidate_rande_start()?
mmap_sem, I assume?
> + /* set userspace_addr atomically for kvm_hva_to_rmapp */
> + spin_lock(&kvm->mmu_lock);
> + memslot->userspace_addr = userspace_addr;
> + spin_unlock(&kvm->mmu_lock);
are you sure? kvm_unmap_hva() and kvm_age_hva() read ->userspace_addr a
single time and it doesn't immediately look like there's a need to take the
lock here?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
kvm-devel mailing list
kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
