lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Mon, 14 May 2007 13:54:13 +0200
From:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: change mmap_sem over to the scalable rw_mutex

On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 11:08:24AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 11 May 2007 19:12:16 +0200
> Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:
> 
> > (now with reply-all)
> > 
> > On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 09:17 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Fri, 11 May 2007 15:15:43 +0200 Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > -	down_write(&current->mm->mmap_sem);
> > > > +	rw_mutex_write_lock(&current->mm->mmap_lock);
> > > 
> > > y'know, this is such an important lock and people have had such problems
> > > with it and so many different schemes and ideas have popped up that I'm
> > > kinda thinking that we should wrap it:
> > > 
> > > 	write_lock_mm(struct mm_struct *mm);
> > > 	write_unlock_mm(struct mm_struct *mm);
> > > 	read_lock_mm(struct mm_struct *mm);
> > > 	read_unlock_mm(struct mm_struct *mm);
> > > 
> > > so that further experimentations become easier?
> > 
> > Sure, can do; it'd require a few more functions than these, but its not
> > too many. However, what is the best way to go about such massive rename
> > actions? Just push them through quickly, and make everybody cope?
> 
> Well, if we _do_ decide to do this (is anyone howling?) then we can do
> 
> static inline void write_lock_mm(struct mm_struct *mm)
> {
> 	down_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
> }

I think that would be fine to do.
-
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

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ