[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 2/4] x86/mem_sharing: introduce and use page_lock_memshr instead of page_lock
>>> On 30.04.19 at 18:03, <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 4/30/19 4:06 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 30.04.19 at 16:43, <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On 4/30/19 9:44 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>>> On 30.04.19 at 10:28, <tamas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 1:15 AM Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>> I've outlined a solution already: Make a mem-sharing private variant >>>>>> of page_{,un}lock(), derived from the PV ones (but with pieces >>>>>> dropped you don't want/need). >>>>> >>>>> Well, that's what I already did here in this patch. No? >>>> >>>> No - you've retained a shared _page_{,un}lock(), whereas my >>>> suggestion was to have a completely independent pair of >>>> functions in mem_sharing.c. The only thing needed by both PV >>>> and HVM would then be the PGT_locked flag. >>> >>> But it wasn't obvious to me how the implementations of the actual lock >>> function would be be different. And there's no point in having two >>> identical implementations; in fact, it would be harmful. >> >> The main difference would be the one that Tamas is after - not >> doing the checking that we do for PV. Whether other bits could >> be dropped for a mem-sharing special variant I don't know (yet). > > The "checking" being that the type count doesn't go to 0? > > It's not just page_lock() that does that checking; it's also > _put_page_type(). We can't really change one but leave the other alone. No, I mean the extra debug checking (current_locked_page_*()). See his patch as to what he keeps for mem-sharing, and what he drops. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |