[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140826155351.GC8952@moon>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 19:53:51 +0400
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, Peter Feiner <pfeiner@...gle.com>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>,
Jamie Liu <jamieliu@...gle.com>,
Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] mm: softdirty: enable write notifications on VMAs
after VM_SOFTDIRTY cleared
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 06:43:55PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 07:18:13PM +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> > > Basically, it's safe if only soft-dirty is allowed to modify vm_flags
> > > without down_write(). But why is soft-dirty so special?
> >
> > because how we use this bit, i mean in normal workload this bit won't
> > be used intensively i think so it's not widespread in kernel code
>
> Weak argument to me.
>
> What about walk through vmas twice: first with down_write() to modify
> vm_flags and vm_page_prot, then downgrade_write() and do
> walk_page_range() on every vma?
I still it's undeeded, but for sure using write-lock/downgrade won't hurt,
so no argues from my side.
--
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