[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1282391770.29609.1223.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 12:56:10 +0100
From: Ian Campbell <ijc@...lion.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...nel.org,
stable-review@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] mlock/stack guard interaction fixup
On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 16:59 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Ian (and others),
> here's a three-patch series that uses the doubly linked list to do
> your mlock() case hopefully correctly.
Thanks Linus.
> NOTE! It's untested. The first patch (which is the slightly scary one)
> is tested to some degree, the two other ones I checked that they
> compile, but that's it.
I applied on top of 2.6.35.3 and it fixes the simple test case I posted
yesterday as well as the original issue I was seeing with the Xen
toolstack on 2.6.32.20.
I don't know that they are particularly good tests for this change but I
also ran allmodconfig kernel build and ltp on 2.6.35.3+fixes without
issue. Are there any good mlock heavy workloads?
Out of interest, why is there no guard page for the VM_GROWSUP stack
case? Is it just that the memory layout on PA-RISC makes the stack grows
into the heap scenario impossible?
> I'm not going to apply them to my main tree unless they get testing
> and acks.
Tested-by: Ian Campbell <ijc@...lion.org.uk>
> And as mentioned, I've not done any of the changes that
> having a vm_prev pointer can allow in other places.
>
> Comments? Fixes? Braindamage?
>
> Linus
--
Ian Campbell
Providence, New Jersey, is one of the few cities where Velveeta cheese
appears on the gourmet shelf.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (199 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists