[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080507224406.GI8276@duo.random>
Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 00:44:06 +0200
From: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@...ranet.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, clameter@....com, steiner@....com,
holt@....com, npiggin@...e.de, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
kvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, kanojsarcar@...oo.com,
rdreier@...co.com, swise@...ngridcomputing.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, avi@...ranet.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
general@...ts.openfabrics.org, hugh@...itas.com,
rusty@...tcorp.com.au, aliguori@...ibm.com, chrisw@...hat.com,
marcelo@...ck.org, dada1@...mosbay.com, paulmck@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08 of 11] anon-vma-rwsem
On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 03:31:03PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Nope. We only need to take the global lock before taking *two or more* of
> the per-vma locks.
>
> I really wish I'd thought of that.
I don't see how you can avoid taking the system-wide-global lock
before every single anon_vma->lock/i_mmap_lock out there without
mm_lock.
Please note, we can't allow a thread to be in the middle of
zap_page_range while mmu_notifier_register runs.
vmtruncate takes 1 single lock, the i_mmap_lock of the inode. Not more
than one lock and we've to still take the global-system-wide lock
_before_ this single i_mmap_lock and no other lock at all.
Please elaborate, thanks!
--
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