On Wed, 20 Feb 2008, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > Well, xpmem requirements are complex. As as side effect of the > simplicity of my approach, my patch is 100% safe since #v1. Now it > also works for GRU and it cluster invalidates.
The patch has to satisfy RDMA, XPMEM, GRU and KVM. I keep hearing that we have a KVM only solution that works 100% (which makes me just switch ignore the rest of the argument because 100% solutions usually do not exist). > rcu_read_lock), no "atomic" parameters, and it doesn't open a window > where sptes have a view on older pages and linux pte has view on newer > pages (this can happen with remap_file_pages with my KVM swapping > patch to use V8 Christoph's patch). Ok so you are now getting away from keeping the refcount elevated? That was your design decision.... > > Also, how to you resolve the case where you are not allowed to sleep? > > I would have thought either you have to handle it, in which case nobody > > needs to sleep; or you can't handle it, in which case the code is > > broken. > > I also asked exactly this, glad you reasked this too. It would have helped if you would have repeated my answers that you had already gotten before. You knew I was on vacation.... ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
