Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264149AbUDOOln (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Apr 2004 10:41:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264159AbUDOOln (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Apr 2004 10:41:43 -0400 Received: from intolerance.mr.itd.umich.edu ([141.211.14.78]:4758 "EHLO intolerance.mr.itd.umich.edu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264149AbUDOOlm (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Apr 2004 10:41:42 -0400 Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 10:41:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Rajesh Venkatasubramanian X-X-Sender: vrajesh@blue.engin.umich.edu To: Andrea Arcangeli cc: "Martin J. Bligh" , Hugh Dickins , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH] anobjrmap 9 priority mjb tree In-Reply-To: <20040415130028.GB2150@dualathlon.random> Message-ID: References: <69200000.1081804458@flay> <20040415000529.GX2150@dualathlon.random> <20040415130028.GB2150@dualathlon.random> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 817 Lines: 23 > > I don't know why bit_spin_lock with vma->vm_flags should be a problem > > if it is used without mmap_sem. Can you explain ? > > you seem not to know all rules about the atomic operations in smp, you > cannot just set_bit on one side and use non-atomic operations on the > other side, and expect the set_bit not to invalidate the non-atomic > operations. > > The effect of the mprotect may be deleted by your new concurrent > set_bit and stuff like that. Thank you very much for that. Stupid me. I didn't read the code in page->flags properly. Thanks again. Rajesh - 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/