On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 11:29:49AM +0800, zhanghailiang wrote:
> Agreed, but for doing live memory snapshot (VM is running when do snapsphot),
> we have to do this (block the write action), because we have to save the page
> before it
> is dirtied by writing action. This is the difference, compare
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 07:31:48PM +0800, zhanghailiang wrote:
> On 2014/10/30 1:46, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> >On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 05:32:51PM +0800, zhanghailiang wrote:
> >>I want to confirm a question:
> >>Can we support distinguishing between writing and reading memory for
> >>userfault?
>
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 05:52:47PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> I probably grossly overestimated the benefits of resolving the
> userfault with a zerocopy page move, sorry. [...]
For posterity, I think it's worth noting that most expensive aspect of a TLB
shootdown is the interprocessor interr
On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 10:56:35AM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> +static inline long __get_user_pages_locked(struct task_struct *tsk,
> +struct mm_struct *mm,
> +unsigned long start,
> +
