Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 15:25:23 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
To: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>
Cc: hugh@veritas.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mbligh@aracnet.com,
       wli@holomorphy.com
Subject: Re: 230-objrmap fixes for 2.6.3-mjb2
Message-Id: <20040326152523.5bfe41db.akpm@osdl.org>
In-Reply-To: <20040326180235.GD9604@dualathlon.random>
References: <20040325214529.GJ20019@dualathlon.random>
	<Pine.LNX.4.44.0403261107100.16019-100000@localhost.localdomain>
	<20040326180235.GD9604@dualathlon.random>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1032
Lines: 24

Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 11:57:23AM +0000, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > Andrea's 2.6.5-rc2-aa4 (anon_vma): based on Martin's, but very
> > likely safe since it does not use find_vma at all in swapout, and
> > unuse_process downs mmap_sem as Martin's used to before.
> 
> Hugh, thanks for the review! I also don't see locking bugs in this area
> in my tree and I like not to take the page_table_lock during vma
> manipulations since I don't seem to need it.

It would be really, really nice if we could clean this crap up.  mmap_sem
protects the vma tree, i_shared_sem protects the per-address_space vma
lists and page_table_lock protects the pagetables.

Does this sound like something we can achieve?

(Could page_table_lock then become per-vma?)

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/