[lkml]   [2001]   [Mar]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: changing mm->mmap_sem (was: Re: system call for process information?)

On Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 08:50:25AM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Mar 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> > > Write locks would be used in the code where we actually want
> > > to change the VMA list and page faults would use an extra lock
> > > to protect against each other (possibly a per-pagetable lock
> >
> > Why do we need another lock? The critical section where we do the
> > final update on the pte _already_ takes the page table spinlock to
> > avoid races against the swapper.
> The problem is that mmap_sem seems to be protecting the list
> of VMAs, so taking _only_ the page_table_lock could let a VMA
> change under us while a page fault is underway ...

Right, I'm not suggesting removing that: making the mmap_sem
read/write is fine, but yes, we still need that semaphore. But as for
the "page faults would use an extra lock to protect against each
other" bit --- we already have another lock, the page table lock,
which can be used in this way, so ANOTHER lock should be unnecessary.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:29    [W:0.043 / U:2.200 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site