Re: [patch] my mmu notifiers

2008-02-20 Thread Nick Piggin
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 02:09:41AM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 12:11:57AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote: > > Sorry, I realise I still didn't get this through my head yet (and also > > have not seen your patch recently). So I don't know exactly what you > > are doing... > >

Re: [patch] my mmu notifiers

2008-02-20 Thread Nick Piggin
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 05:40:50PM -0600, Jack Steiner wrote: > On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 12:11:57AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 02:58:51PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 09:43:57AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > > anything when changing the pt

Re: [patch] my mmu notifiers

2008-02-19 Thread Robin Holt
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 12:11:57AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote: > On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 02:58:51PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 09:43:57AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > anything when changing the pte to be _more_ permissive, and I don't > > > > Note that in my patch

Re: [patch] my mmu notifiers

2008-02-19 Thread Robin Holt
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 01:52:06AM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 12:04:27AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote: > > OK (thanks to Robin as well). Now I understand why you are using it, > > but I don't understand why you don't defer new TLBs after the point > > where the linux pte c

Re: [patch] my mmu notifiers

2008-02-19 Thread Andrea Arcangeli
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 12:11:57AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote: > Sorry, I realise I still didn't get this through my head yet (and also > have not seen your patch recently). So I don't know exactly what you > are doing... The last version was posted here: http://marc.info/?l=kvm-devel&m=12032173252

Re: [patch] my mmu notifiers

2008-02-19 Thread Andrea Arcangeli
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 12:04:27AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote: > On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 08:27:25AM -0600, Jack Steiner wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 02:58:51PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > > > understand the need for invalidate_begin/invalidate_end pairs at all. > > > > > > The need of

Re: [patch] my mmu notifiers

2008-02-19 Thread Andrea Arcangeli
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 11:59:23PM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote: > That's why I don't understand the need for the pairs: it should be > done like this. Yes, except it can't be done like this for xpmem. > OK, I didn't see the invalidate_pages call... See the last patch I posted to Andrew, you've prob

Re: [patch] my mmu notifiers

2008-02-19 Thread Jack Steiner
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 12:11:57AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote: > On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 02:58:51PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 09:43:57AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > anything when changing the pte to be _more_ permissive, and I don't > > > > Note that in my patch

Re: [patch] my mmu notifiers

2008-02-19 Thread Nick Piggin
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 02:58:51PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 09:43:57AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote: > > anything when changing the pte to be _more_ permissive, and I don't > > Note that in my patch the invalidate_pages in mprotect can be > trivially switched to a mprot

Re: [patch] my mmu notifiers

2008-02-19 Thread Nick Piggin
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 08:27:25AM -0600, Jack Steiner wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 02:58:51PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > > understand the need for invalidate_begin/invalidate_end pairs at all. > > > > The need of the pairs is crystal clear to me: range_begin is needed > > for GRU _b

Re: [patch] my mmu notifiers

2008-02-19 Thread Nick Piggin
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 02:58:51PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 09:43:57AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote: > > are rather similar. However I have tried to make a point of minimising the > > impact the the core mm/. I don't see why we need to invalidate or flush > > I also tri

Re: [patch] my mmu notifiers

2008-02-19 Thread Jack Steiner
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 02:58:51PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > understand the need for invalidate_begin/invalidate_end pairs at all. > > The need of the pairs is crystal clear to me: range_begin is needed > for GRU _but_only_if_ range_end is called after releasing the > reference that the

Re: [patch] my mmu notifiers

2008-02-19 Thread Andrea Arcangeli
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 09:43:57AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote: > are rather similar. However I have tried to make a point of minimising the > impact the the core mm/. I don't see why we need to invalidate or flush I also tried hard to minimise the impact of the core mm/, I also argued with Christoph

Re: [patch] my mmu notifiers

2008-02-19 Thread Robin Holt
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 09:43:57AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote: > So I implemented mmu notifiers slightly differently. Andrea's mmu notifiers > are rather similar. However I have tried to make a point of minimising the > impact the the core mm/. I don't see why we need to invalidate or flush > anythin