[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080425192532.GA19717@sgi.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:25:32 -0500
From: Robin Holt <holt@....com>
To: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@...ranet.com>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Steve Wise <swise@...ngridcomputing.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Kanoj Sarcar <kanojsarcar@...oo.com>,
Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>,
Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Avi Kivity <avi@...ranet.com>, kvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
Robin Holt <holt@....com>, general@...ts.openfabrics.org,
Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1 of 9] Lock the entire mm to prevent any mmu related
operation to happen
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 06:56:40PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> Fortunately I figured out we don't really need mm_lock in unregister
> because it's ok to unregister in the middle of the range_begin/end
> critical section (that's definitely not ok for register that's why
> register needs mm_lock). And it's perfectly ok to fail in register().
I think you still need mm_lock (unless I miss something). What happens
when one callout is scanning mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start() and
you unlink. That list next pointer with LIST_POISON1 which is a really
bad address for the processor to track.
Maybe I misunderstood your description.
Thanks,
Robin
--
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