On Wed, 3 Jun 2015, Jerome Glisse wrote: > On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 04:10:46PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote: > > On Mon, 1 Jun 2015, Jerome Glisse wrote: > > > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 08:43:59PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote: > > > > On Thu, 21 May 2015, j.glisse@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > > > From: Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@xxxxxxxxxx> > > [...] > > > > We may have to add MMU_READ_WRITE (and maybe another one, I haven't > > > > bottomed out on that), if you agree with the above approach of > > > > always sending a precise event, instead of "protection changed". > > > > > > I think Linus point made sense last time, but i would need to read > > > again the thread. The idea of that patch is really to provide context > > > information on what kind of CPU page table changes is happening and > > > why. > > > > > > > Shoot, I tried to find that conversation, but my search foo is too weak. > > If you have a link to that thread, I'd appreciate it, so I can refresh my > > memory. > > > > I was hoping to re-read it and see if anything has changed. It's not > > really a huge problem to call find_vma() again, but I do want to be sure > > that there's a good reason for doing so. > > > > Otherwise, I'll just rely on your memory that Linus preferred your current > > approach, and call it good, then. > > http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1406.3/04880.html > > I am working on doing some of the changes discussed so far, i will push my > tree to git://people.freedesktop.org/~glisse/linux hmm branch once i am done. Aha, OK, that was back when you were passing around the vma. But now, you're not doing that anymore. It's just: mm*, range* (start, end, event_type), and sometimes page* and exclude*). So I think it's still reasonable to either pass down pure vma flags, or else add in new event types, in order to avoid having to lookup the vma later. We could still get NAK'd for adding ugly new event types, but if you're going to add the event types at all, let's make them complete, so that we really *earn* the NAK. :) > > Cheers, > Jérôme >