[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <nycvar.YSQ.7.76.1710021931270.5407@knanqh.ubzr>
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 19:33:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>
To: Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@...il.com>
cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-embedded@...r.kernel.org" <linux-embedded@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Chris Brandt <Chris.Brandt@...esas.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/5] cramfs: add mmap support
On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 12:29 AM, Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org> wrote:
> > On Sun, 1 Oct 2017, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >
> >> up_read(&mm->mmap_sem) in the fault path is a still a complete
> >> no-go,
> >>
> >> NAK
> >
> > Care to elaborate?
> >
> > What about mm/filemap.c:__lock_page_or_retry() then?
>
> As soon you up_read() in the page fault path other tasks will race
> with you before
> you're able to grab the write lock.
But I _know_ that.
Could you highlight an area in my code where this is not accounted for?
Nicolas
Powered by blists - more mailing lists