[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0910152356110.9759@sister.anvils>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 00:04:14 +0100 (BST)
From: Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>
To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Nigel Cunningham <ncunningham@...a.org.au>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] swap_info: change to array of pointers
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Oct 2009, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 01:48:01 +0100 (BST)
> > Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk> wrote:
> > > @@ -1675,11 +1674,13 @@ static void *swap_start(struct seq_file
> > > if (!l)
> > > return SEQ_START_TOKEN;
> > >
> > > - for (i = 0; i < nr_swapfiles; i++, ptr++) {
> > > - if (!(ptr->flags & SWP_USED) || !ptr->swap_map)
> > > + for (type = 0; type < nr_swapfiles; type++) {
> > > + smp_rmb(); /* read nr_swapfiles before swap_info[type] */
> > > + si = swap_info[type];
> >
> > if (!si) ?
Re-reading, I see that I missed your interjection there.
Precisely because we read swap_info[type] after reading nr_swapfiles,
with smp_rmb() here to enforce that, and smp_wmb() where they're set
in swapon, there is no way for si to be seen as NULL here. Is there?
Or are you asking for a further comment here on why that's so?
I think I'd rather just switch to taking swap_lock in swap_start()
and swap_next(), than be adding comments on why we don't need it.
Hugh
--
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