[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0804231122410.12373@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:27:21 -0700 (PDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@...ranet.com>
cc: Robin Holt <holt@....com>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
kvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
Kanoj Sarcar <kanojsarcar@...oo.com>,
Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>,
Steve Wise <swise@...ngridcomputing.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Avi Kivity <avi@...ranet.com>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, general@...ts.openfabrics.org,
Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01 of 12] Core of mmu notifiers
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 11:09:35AM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > Why is there still the hlist stuff being used for the mmu notifier list?
> > And why is this still unsafe?
>
> What's the problem with hlist, it saves 8 bytes for each mm_struct,
> you should be using it too instead of list.
list heads in mm_struct and in the mmu_notifier struct seemed to
be more consistent. We have no hash list after all.
>
> > There are cases in which you do not take the reverse map locks or mmap_sem
> > while traversing the notifier list?
>
> There aren't.
There is a potential issue in move_ptes where you call
invalidate_range_end after dropping i_mmap_sem whereas my patches did the
opposite. Mmap_sem saves you there?
--
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