[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMYGaxqxb=XR8R26h4e2URA2hG2M3j9V4u0DLJ9ifmkZKJa+eg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 21:09:05 +0530
From: rajman mekaco <rajman.mekaco@...il.com>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...two.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] mlock: split the shmlock_user_lock spinlock into per
user_struct spinlock
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 8:24 PM, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com> wrote:
> On 05/10/2012 09:34 AM, rajman mekaco wrote:
>
>> Any updates on this ?
>
>
> There is still no usecase to demonstrate a problem, so no real
> justification to merge the patch. Coming up with such a usecase
> is up to the submitter of the patch.
Maybe you didn't read my last email:
If 2 different user-mode processes executing on 2 CPUs under 2 different
users want to access the same shared memory through the
shmctl(SHM_LOCK) / shmget(SHM_HUGETLB) / usr_shm_lock
primitives, they could compete/spin even though their user_structs
are different.
Can you please correct me if I am missing some crucial point of understanding ?
Or did you mean that I should update the ChangeLog with this kind of
description ?
>
> --
> All rights reversed
--
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