| To: | Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | [xfs-masters] Re: Interaction between Xen and XFS: stray RW mappings |
| From: | dean gaudet <dean@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sun, 21 Oct 2007 21:28:32 -0700 (PDT) |
| Cc: | Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, Xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Mark Williamson <mark.williamson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Morten Bøgeskov <xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs-masters@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <471C1A61.1010001@goop.org> |
| References: | <470FA7C3.90404@goop.org> <20071014225618.GN23367404@sgi.com> <4712A254.4090604@goop.org> <200710151415.07248.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> <alpine.DEB.0.9999.0710212015430.2320@twinlark.arctic.org> <471C1A61.1010001@goop.org> |
| Reply-to: | xfs-masters@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| Sender: | xfs-masters-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > dean gaudet wrote: > > On Mon, 15 Oct 2007, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > > > >> Yes, as Dave said, vmap (more specifically: vunmap) is very expensive > >> because it generally has to invalidate TLBs on all CPUs. > >> > > > > why is that? ignoring 32-bit archs we have heaps of address space > > available... couldn't the kernel just burn address space and delay global > > TLB invalidate by some relatively long time (say 1 second)? > > > > Yes, that's precisely the problem. xfs does delay the unmap, leaving > stray mappings, which upsets Xen. sounds like a bug in xen to me :) -dean |
| Previous by Date: | [xfs-masters] Re: Interaction between Xen and XFS: stray RW mappings, dean gaudet |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [xfs-masters] Re: Interaction between Xen and XFS: stray RW mappings, Nick Piggin |
| Previous by Thread: | [xfs-masters] Re: Interaction between Xen and XFS: stray RW mappings, Jeremy Fitzhardinge |
| Next by Thread: | [xfs-masters] Re: Interaction between Xen and XFS: stray RW mappings, Nick Piggin |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |