[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFzoxMYLXdBvdMYTy_LhrVuU233qh1eDyAda5otUTHojPA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 16:09:48 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>,
bhutchings@...arflare.com,
Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...nvz.org>,
Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [patch for-3.7] mm, mempolicy: fix printing stack contents in numa_maps
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 7:39 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> So I think the below should work, we hold the spinlock over both rb-tree
> modification as sp free, this makes mpol_shared_policy_lookup() which
> returns the policy with an incremented refcount work with just the
> spinlock.
>
> Comments?
Looks reasonable, if annoyingly complex for something that shouldn't
be important enough for this. Oh well.
However, please check me on this: the need for this is only for
linux-next right now, correct? All the current users in my tree are ok
with just the mutex, no?
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