[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0804031215050.7480@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 12:20:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@...ranet.com>
cc: Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>, Robin Holt <holt@....com>,
Avi Kivity <avi@...ranet.com>, Izik Eidus <izike@...ranet.com>,
kvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
general@...ts.openfabrics.org,
Steve Wise <swise@...ngridcomputing.com>,
Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>,
Kanoj Sarcar <kanojsarcar@...oo.com>, steiner@....com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
daniel.blueman@...drics.com, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Subject: Re: EMM: disable other notifiers before register and unregister
On Thu, 3 Apr 2008, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> My attempt to fix this once and for all is to walk all vmas of the
> "mm" inside mmu_notifier_register and take all anon_vma locks and
> i_mmap_locks in virtual address order in a row. It's ok to take those
> inside the mmap_sem. Supposedly if anybody will ever take a double
> lock it'll do in order too. Then I can dump all the other locking and
What about concurrent mmu_notifier registrations from two mm_structs
that have shared mappings? Isnt there a potential deadlock situation?
> faults). So it should be ok to take all those locks inside the
> mmap_sem and implement a lock_vm(mm) unlock_vm(mm). I'll think more
> about this hammer approach while I try to implement it...
Well good luck. Hopefully we will get to something that works.
--
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