[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0804062314080.18728@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2008 23:20:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@...ranet.com>
cc: Robin Holt <holt@....com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
kvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
general@...ts.openfabrics.org, steiner@....com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [patch 02/10] emm: notifier logic
On Mon, 7 Apr 2008, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > > My mm_lock solution makes all rcu serialization an unnecessary
> > > overhead so you should remove it like I already did in #v11. If it
> > > wasn't the case, then mm_lock wouldn't be a definitive fix for the
> > > race.
> >
> > There still could be junk in the cache of one cpu. If you just read the
> > new pointer but use the earlier content pointed to then you have a
> > problem.
>
> There can't be junk, spinlocks provides semantics of proper memory
> barriers, just like rcu, so it's entirely superflous.
>
> There could be junk only if any of the mmu_notifier_* methods would be
> invoked _outside_ the i_mmap_lock and _outside_ the anon_vma and
> outside the mmap_sem, that is never the case of course.
So we use other locks to perform serialization on the list chains?
Basically the list chains are protected by either mmap_sem or an rmap
lock? We need to document that.
In that case we could also add an unregister function.
--
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