[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0901072130110.29075@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 21:33:31 -0500 (EST)
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
cc: Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Peter Morreale <pmorreale@...ell.com>,
Sven Dietrich <SDietrich@...ell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v5][RFC]: mutex: implement adaptive spinning
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > Should that be:
> >
> > #if defined(CONFIG_DEBUG_PAGEALLOC) || defined(CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG)
>
> Well, probably CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTREMOVE, no? And I'd actually suggest that
> unplugging should have a stop-machine if it doesn't already, just because
> it's such a special case - like module removal.
I do not think stop-machine will help, unless that spinning is protected
by preempt-disable. If the task gets preempted after grabbing the owner
thread_info, and then stop-machine runs, the memory disappears, the task
is scheduled back, accesses the owner thread_info and then page-fault.
-- Steve
--
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