On 02/09/2011 08:22, "Ian Campbell" <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 21:37 +0100, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: >> On 09/01/2011 09:11 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: >>> On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 12:51:03PM +0100, David Vrabel wrote: >>>> From: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> Andrew, >>> >>> I was wondering if you would be Ok with this patch for 3.1. >>> >>> It is a revert (I can prepare a proper revert if you would like >>> that instead of this patch). >>> >>> The users of this particular function (alloc_vm_area) are just >>> Xen. There are no others. >> >> I'd prefer to put explicit vmalloc_sync_all()s in the callsites where >> necessary, and ultimately try to work out ways of avoiding it altogether >> (like have some hypercall wrapper which touches the arg memory to make >> sure its mapped?). > > That only syncs the current pagetable though. If that is sufficient (and > it could well be) then perhaps just doing a vmalloc_sync_one on the > current page tables directly would be better than faulting to do it? It's probably sufficient unless the kernel has non-voluntary preemption, and we are not preempt_disable()d. -- Keir > It's the sort of thing you could hide inside the gnttab_set_map_op type > helpers I guess? > > Ian. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>