On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 07:09:55AM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
Isn't that out of the question for .25?
I keep hearing this mantra. What is so compelling about the .25
release? When seems to be more important than what. While I understand
product release cycles, etc. and can certainly agree with
Robin Holt wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 07:09:55AM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
Isn't that out of the question for .25?
I keep hearing this mantra. What is so compelling about the .25
release? When seems to be more important than what. While I understand
product release cycles,
On Wed, 2008-03-05 at 03:47 -0600, Robin Holt wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 07:09:55AM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
Isn't that out of the question for .25?
I keep hearing this mantra. What is so compelling about the .25
release? When seems to be more important than what. While I understand
On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 11:31:15PM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
@@ -446,6 +450,8 @@ static int page_mkclean_one(struct page
if (address == -EFAULT)
goto out;
+ /* rmap lock held */
+ emm_notify(mm, emm_invalidate_start, address, address + PAGE_SIZE);
On Tue, 4 Mar 2008, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
When working with single pages it's more efficient and preferable to
call invalidate_page and only later release the VM reference on the
page.
But as you pointed out before that path is a slow path anyways. Its rarely
taken. Having a single
On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 11:00:31AM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
But as you pointed out before that path is a slow path anyways. Its rarely
It's a slow path but I don't see why you think two hooks are better
than one, when only one is necessary.
I once ripped invalidate_page while working on
On Tue, 4 Mar 2008, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
I once ripped invalidate_page while working on #v8 but then I
reintroduced it because I thought reducing the total number of hooks
was beneficial to the core linux VM (even if only a
microoptimization, I sure agree about that, but it's trivial to
On Tue, 4 Mar 2008, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Tue, 2008-03-04 at 14:35 -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
RCU means that the callbacks occur in an atomic context.
Not really, if it requires moving the VM locks to sleepable locks under
a .config option, I think its also fair to require
FWIW, I'll cut the kvm and openfabrics lists from any future posts.
I'm getting tired of the bounces.
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Tue, 2008-03-04 at 14:35 -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
RCU means that the callbacks occur in an atomic context.
Not really, if it requires moving the VM locks to sleepable locks under
a .config option, I think its also fair to require PREEMPT_RCU.
OTOH,
Stripped things down and did what Andrea and I talked about last Friday.
No invalidate_page callbacks. No ops anymore. Simple linked list for
notifier. No RCU. Added the code to rmap.h and rmap.c (after all it is
concerned with handling mappings).
This patch implements a simple callback for
11 matches
Mail list logo
