[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080611044716.GA11545@wotan.suse.de>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 06:47:16 +0200
From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
benh@...nel.crashing.org, paulus@...ba.org
Subject: Re: [patch 7/7] powerpc: lockless get_user_pages_fast
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 09:40:25PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jun 2008, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> > > This is reversing the modification to make get_page_unless_zero() usable
> > > with compound page heads. Will break the slab defrag patchset.
> >
> > Is the slab defrag patchset in -mm? Because you ignored my comment about
> > this change that assertions should not be weakened until required by the
> > actual patchset. I wanted to have these assertions be as strong as
> > possible for the lockless pagecache patchset.
>
> So you are worried about accidentally using get_page_unless_zero on a
> compound page? What would be wrong about that?
Unexpected. Compound pages should have no such races that require
get_page_unless_zero that we very carefully use in page reclaim.
If you don't actually know whether you have a reference to the
thing or not before trying to operate on it, then you're almost
definitely got refcount wrong. How does slab defrag use it?
--
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