From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264472AbUBEFTM (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Feb 2004 00:19:12 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265170AbUBEFTM (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Feb 2004 00:19:12 -0500 Received: from web9704.mail.yahoo.com ([216.136.129.140]:32131 "HELO web9704.mail.yahoo.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S264472AbUBEFTG (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Feb 2004 00:19:06 -0500 Message-ID: <20040205051905.19684.qmail@web9704.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 21:19:05 -0800 (PST) From: Alok Mooley Subject: Re: Active Memory Defragmentation: Our implementation & problems To: Dave Hansen Cc: linux-kernel , linux-mm In-Reply-To: <1075924593.27981.458.camel@nighthawk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --- Dave Hansen wrote: > On Wed, 2004-02-04 at 10:54, Alok Mooley wrote: > > --- Dave Hansen wrote: > Depending on the quantity of work that you're trying > to do at once, this > might be unavoidable. > > I know it's a difficult thing to think about, but I > still don't > understand the precise cases that you're concerned > about. Page faults > to me seem like the least of your problems. A > bigger issue would be if > the page is written to by userspace after you copy, > but before you > install the new pte. Did I miss the code in your > patch that invalidated > the old tlb entries? This is a non issue for us right now, since we update the ptes in a lock, & so no one can access it before it is completely updated. Yes, we invalidate the old tlb entries as well as the cache entries as reqd. on some other architectures. -Alok __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html