On Fri, 29 Feb 2008, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 10:43:54AM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > What about invalidate_page()? > > That would just spin waiting an ack (just like the smp-tlb-flushing > invalidates in numa already does).
And thus the device driver may stop receiving data on a UP system? It will never get the ack. > Thinking more about this, we could also parallelize it with an > invalidate_page_before/end. If it takes 1usec to flush remotely, > scheduling would be overkill, but spending 1usec in a while loop isn't > nice if we can parallelize that 1usec with the ipi-tlb-flush. Not sure > if it makes sense... it certainly would be quick to add it (especially > thanks to _notify ;). invalidate_page_before/end could be realized as an invalidate_range_begin/end on a page sized range? ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
