Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 30 Jan 2001 09:23:27 -0200 (BRDT) | From | Rik van Riel <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] guard mm->rss with page_table_lock (241p11) |
| |
On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Chris Wedgwood wrote: > On Tue, Jan 30, 2001 at 12:39:24AM -0800, David S. Miller wrote: > > Please see older threads about this, it has been discussed to > death already (hint: sizeof(atomic_t), sizeof(unsigned long)). > > can we not define a macro so architectures that can do do atomically > inc/dec with unsigned long will? otherwise it uses the spinlock?
Why bother ?
In most places where we update mm->rss, we are *already* holding the spinlock anyway, this correction is just for a few places.
The big patch Rasmus made seems to contain spin_lock(&foo) in places where we already have the lock, leading to instant SMP deadlock. I suspect Rasmus' patch should be about half the size it is currently...
regards,
Rik -- Virtual memory is like a game you can't win; However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose...
http://www.surriel.com/ http://www.conectiva.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com.br/
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |