On Fri, 29 Feb 2008, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > Also re the _notify variants: The binding to pte_clear_flush_young etc > > will become a problem for notifiers that want to sleep because > > pte_clear_flush is usually called with the pte lock held. See f.e. > > try_to_unmap_one, page_mkclean_one etc. > > Calling __free_page out of the PT lock is much bigger > change. do_wp_page will require changes anyway when the sleepable > notifiers are merged.
I thought you wanted to get rid of the sync via pte lock? What changes to do_wp_page do you envision? > > It would be better if the notifier calls could be moved outside of the > > pte lock. > > The point is that it can't make a difference right now, and my > objective was to avoid unnecessary source code duplication (later it > will be necessary, right now it isn't). By the time you rework > do_wp_page, removing _notify will be a very minor detail compared to > the rest of the changes to do_wp_page IMHO. Expanding it now won't > provide a real advantage later. What is the trouble with the current do_wp_page modifications? There is no need for invalidate_page() there so far. invalidate_range() does the trick there. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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