[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 08:31:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm,migration: Prevent rmap_walk_[anon|ksm] seeing
the wrong VMA information
On Wed, 5 May 2010, Mel Gorman wrote:
>
> rmap_walk() appears to be the only one that takes multiple locks but it itself
> is not serialised. If there are more than one process calling rmap_walk()
> on different processes sharing the same VMAs, is there a guarantee they walk
> it in the same order?
So I had this notion of the list always getting deeper and us guaranteeing
the order in it, but you're right - that's not the 'same_anon_vma' list,
it's the 'same_vma' one.
Damn. So yeah, I don't see us guaranteeing any ordering guarantees. My
bad.
That said, I do wonder if we could _make_ the ordering reliable. I did
that for the 'same_vma' one, because I wanted to be able to verify that
chains were consistent (and we also needed to be able to find the "oldest
anon_vma" for the case of re-instantiating pages that migth exist in
multiple different anon_vma's).
Any ideas?
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists