On Thu, 28 Feb 2008, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > If RDMA/IB folks needed to block in invalidate_range, I guess they > need to do so on top of tmpfs too, and that never worked with your > patch anyway.
How about blocking in invalidate_page()? It can be made to work... > > Would it not be better to have a solution that fits all instead of hacking > > something in now and then having to modify it later? > > The whole point is that your solution fits only GRU and KVM too. Well so we do not address the issues? > XPMEM in your patch works in a hacked mode limited to anonymous memory > only, Robin already received incoming mail asking to allow xpmem to > work on more than anonymous memory, so your solution-that-fits-all > doesn't actually fit some of Robin's customer needs. So if it doesn't > even entirely satisfy xpmem users, imagine the other potential > blocking-users of this code. The solutions have been mentioned... > anon_vma lock can remain a spinlock unless you also want to schedule > inside try_to_unmap. Either that or a separate rmap as also mentioned before. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
