[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3897758.H188Yq1CBR@js-desktop.svl.corp.google.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 13:13:21 -0800
From: Junaid Shahid <junaids@...gle.com>
To: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Shaohua Li <shli@...com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -V3 -mm] mm, swap: Fix race between swapoff and some swap operations
On Monday, December 18, 2017 3:41:41 PM PST Huang, Ying wrote:
>
> A version implemented via stop_machine() could be gotten via a small
> patch as below. If you still prefer stop_machine(), I can resend a
> version implemented with stop_machine().
>
For the stop_machine() version, would it work to just put preempt_disable/enable at the start and end of lock_cluster() rather than introducing get/put_swap_device? Something like that might be simpler and would also disable preemption for less duration.
Thanks,
Junaid
Powered by blists - more mailing lists