Keir Fraser wrote:
> I didn't think that nobbling config options for particular pv_ops
> implementations was acceptable? I'm rather out of the loop though, and could
> be wrong.
>
As a workaround it would be OK. As a dependency, perhaps.
> The PREEMPT_BITS limitation is a good argument for at least taking the pte
> locks in small batches though (small batches is preferable to one-by-one
> since we will want to batch the make-readonly-and-pin hypercall requests to
> amortise the cost of the hypervisor trap).
>
Hm, that's a good point. The pagetable permissions changes are batched
more or less asynchronously from the actual loop structure; that will
complicate adding the locking.
J
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
