[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMYGaxrj37Wwan+UKKvvSj6M+G=ksNMscmF40JDMrKZmx5tD2g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 22:18:46 +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
> If 2 different user-mode processes executing on 2 CPUs under 2 different
> users want to access the same shared memory through the
One correction:
This will happen even for different shared memory as the lock is global.
This fact just increases the relevance of this patch, dont you think ?
> shmctl(SHM_LOCK) / shmget(SHM_HUGETLB) / usr_shm_lock
> primitives, they could compete/spin even though their user_structs
> are different.
>
--
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