[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1001071208550.7821@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 12:13:28 -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, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> Again, it doesn't matter. Old or new - if some other thread looks up the
> vma, either is fine.
Btw, don't get me wrong. That patch may compile (I checked it), but I am
not in any way claiming that it is anything else than a total throw-away
"this is something we could look at doing" suggestion.
For example, I'm not at all wedded to using 'mm->page_table_lock': I in
fact wanted to use a per-vma lock, but I picked a lock we already had. The
fact that picking a lock we already had also means that it serializes page
table updates (sometimes) is actually a downside, not a good thing.
So the patch was meant to get people thinking about alternatives, rather
than anything else.
The point being that there are things we can play with on mmap_sem, that
don't involve getting rid of it - just being a bit more aggressive in how
we use it.
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