Re: [PATCH 3/5] mm: powerpc ptlock comments

On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 07:12 +0000, Hugh Dickins wrote:

> I'd appreciate something that updates the "because" part too, but don't
> know the answer.  That other patch will need to come from your end - Ben?

Hrm... same reason as __hash_page(), the code now locks the PTE using
the _PAGE_BUSY bit. The last store does the update and unlock and
doesn't need to be atomic. However, now that I look at it, it might need
an lwsync. Paul ?

Ben.


-
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/

---

• References:
  • [PATCH 0/5] mm: flotsam
    • From: Hugh Dickins <[email protected]>
  • [PATCH 3/5] mm: powerpc ptlock comments
    • From: Hugh Dickins <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 3/5] mm: powerpc ptlock comments
    • From: Paul Mackerras <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 3/5] mm: powerpc ptlock comments
    • From: Hugh Dickins <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [patch 9/12] mm: page_state opt
• Next by Date: Re: [patch 9/12] mm: page_state opt
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 3/5] mm: powerpc ptlock comments
• Next by thread: [PATCH 1/5] mm: update split ptlock Kconfig
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]