[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1001071207040.7821@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 12:08:25 -0800 (PST)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"minchan.kim@...il.com" <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
"hugh.dickins" <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 6/8] mm: handle_speculative_fault()
On Thu, 7 Jan 2010, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>
> page_table_lock used to serialize multiple fast brks?
>
> CONFIG_SPLIT_PTLOCK implies that code will not use this lock in fault
> handling. So no serialization with faults.
Correct. The faults we do not need to serialize with. It doesn't matter
whether they see the old or the new end.
> Also the current code assumes vm_end and so on to be stable if mmap_sem is
> held. F.e. find_vma() from do_fault is now running while vm_end may be changing
> under it.
Again, it doesn't matter. Old or new - if some other thread looks up the
vma, either is fine.
Linus
--
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