Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Wed, 31 May 2006, Nick Piggin wrote:
Jens Axboe wrote:
Maybe I'm being dense, but I don't see a problem there. You _should_
call the new mapping sync page if it has been migrated.
But can some other thread calling lock_page first find the old mapping,
and then run its ->sync_page which finds the new mapping? While it may
not matter for anyone in-tree, it does break the API so it would be
better to either fix it or rip it out than be silently buggy.
Splicing a page from one mapping to another is rather worrying/exciting,
but it does look safely done to me. remove_mapping checks page_count
while page lock and old mapping->tree_lock are held, and gives up if
anyone else has an interest in the page. And we already know it's
unsafe to lock_page without holding a reference to the page, don't we?
Oh, that's true. I had thought that splice allows stealing pages with
an elevated refcount, which Jens was thinking about at one stage. But
I see that code isn't in mainline. AFAIKS it would allow other
->pin()ers to attempt to lock the page while it was being stolen.
--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
-
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]
