Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH 00 of 12] mmu notifier #v13

2008-04-23 Thread Andrea Arcangeli
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 01:30:53PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > One solution would be to separate the invalidate_page() callout into a > patch at the very end that can be omitted. AFACIT There is no compelling > reason to have this callback and it complicates the API for the device > driver

Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH 00 of 12] mmu notifier #v13

2008-04-22 Thread Jack Steiner
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 03:51:16PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > Hello, > > This is the latest and greatest version of the mmu notifier patch #v13. > FWIW, I have updated the GRU driver to use this patch (plus the fixeups). No problems. AFAICT, everything works. --- jack --

Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH 00 of 12] mmu notifier #v13

2008-04-22 Thread Christoph Lameter
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008, Robin Holt wrote: > putting it back into your patch/agreeing to it remaining in Andrea's > patch? If not, I think we can put this issue aside until Andrew gets > out of the merge window and can decide it. Either way, the patches > become much more similar with this in. One

Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH 00 of 12] mmu notifier #v13

2008-04-22 Thread Christoph Lameter
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > My patch order and API backward compatible extension over the patchset > is done to allow 2.6.26 to fully support KVM/GRU and 2.6.27 to support > XPMEM as well. KVM/GRU won't notice any difference once the support > for XPMEM is added, but even if the

Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH 00 of 12] mmu notifier #v13

2008-04-22 Thread Robin Holt
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 08:43:35PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 01:22:13PM -0500, Robin Holt wrote: > > 1) invalidate_page: You retain an invalidate_page() callout. I believe > > we have progressed that discussion to the point that it requires some > > direction for An

Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH 00 of 12] mmu notifier #v13

2008-04-22 Thread Andrea Arcangeli
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 01:22:13PM -0500, Robin Holt wrote: > 1) invalidate_page: You retain an invalidate_page() callout. I believe > we have progressed that discussion to the point that it requires some > direction for Andrew, Linus, or somebody in authority. The basics > of the difference dis

Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH 00 of 12] mmu notifier #v13

2008-04-22 Thread Robin Holt
I believe the differences between your patch set and Christoph's need to be understood and a compromise approach agreed upon. Those differences, as I understand them, are: 1) invalidate_page: You retain an invalidate_page() callout. I believe we have progressed that discussion to the point tha

[kvm-devel] [PATCH 00 of 12] mmu notifier #v13

2008-04-22 Thread Andrea Arcangeli
Hello, This is the latest and greatest version of the mmu notifier patch #v13. Changes are mainly in the mm_lock that uses sort() suggested by Christoph. This reduces the complexity from O(N**2) to O(N*log(N)). I folded the mm_lock functionality together with the mmu-notifier-core 1/12 patch to