On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 10:10:57PM +0000, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Feb 2007, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > This look like a valid fix to me, at least as long as the lock is never
> > dropped in the meantime (e.g., to do I/O). If the lock -is- dropped in
> > the meantime, then presumably whatever is done to keep the page from
> > vanishing should allow an rcu_read_unlock() to be placed after each
> > spin_unlock(&...->lock) and an rcu_read_lock() to be placed before each
> > spin_lock(&...->lock).
>
> Thankfully no complications of that kind, page_lock_anon_vma is static
> to mm/rmap.c, and only used to hold the spin lock while examining page
> tables of the vmas in the list, never a need to drop that lock at all.
> (Until the day when someone reports such a long list that we start to
> worry about the latency.)
Whew!!! For now, anyway! ;-)
Thanx, Paul
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
