Keir Fraser wrote: > I didn't think that nobbling config options for particular pv_ops > implementations was acceptable? I'm rather out of the loop though, and could > be wrong. >
As a workaround it would be OK. As a dependency, perhaps. > The PREEMPT_BITS limitation is a good argument for at least taking the pte > locks in small batches though (small batches is preferable to one-by-one > since we will want to batch the make-readonly-and-pin hypercall requests to > amortise the cost of the hypervisor trap). > Hm, that's a good point. The pagetable permissions changes are batched more or less asynchronously from the actual loop structure; that will complicate adding the locking. J - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/