Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 29 Jan 1999 12:20:43 +0100 (CET) | From | MOLNAR Ingo <> | Subject | Re: [patch] fixed both processes in D state and the /proc/ oopses [Re: [patch] Fixed the race that was oopsing Linux-2.2.0] |
| |
On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> Another way to tell the same: "how can I be sure that I am doing an > atomic_inc(&mm->count) on a mm->count that was just > 0, and more > important on an mm that is still allocated? "
you are misunderstanding how atomic_inc_and_test() works. The processor guarantees this. This is the crux of SMP atomic operations. How otherwise could we reliably build read-write spinlocks.
yes, there is no atomic_inc_and_test() yet. (it's a bit tricky to implement but pretty much analogous to read-write locks, we probably need to shift values down by one to get the 'just increased from -1 to 0' event via the zero flag, and get the 'just decreased from 0 to -1' event via the sign flag.) Also note that this is all fiction yet because we _are_ holding the kernel lock for these situations in 2.2.
-- mingo
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |