[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1001071634500.7821@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 16:39:27 -0800 (PST)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.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 Fri, 8 Jan 2010, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
>
> Hmm, do_brk() sometimes unmap conflicting mapping. Isn't it be a problem ?
No. For two reasons:
- sys_brk() doesn't actually do that (see the "find_vma_intersection()"
call). I'm not sure why do_brk() does, but it might have to do with
execve().
- the patch I sent out just falls back to the old code if it finds
something fishy, so it will do whatever do_brk() does regardless.
(Yes, brk() does unmap the old brk for the _shrinking_ case, of course.
Again, the patch I sent just falls back to the old behavior in that case)
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