Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 14 May 2003 13:05:56 -0500 | From | Dave McCracken <> | Subject | Re: Race between vmtruncate and mapped areas? |
| |
--On Wednesday, May 14, 2003 10:57:06 -0700 Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com> wrote:
> yes. It's a very complex way of allocating anonymous memory.
Yep. And randomly, at that.
> I am told that Stephen, Linus and others discussed this at length at KS a > couple of years ago and the upshot was that the application is racy anyway > and there's nothing wrong with it. > > Hugh calls these "Morton pages" but it wasn't me and nobody saw me do it. > > It would be nice to make them go away - they cause problems.
Definitely. We almost have the pieces necessary to detect it and/or prevent it, but the info isn't in quite the right layer at the right time. If it weren't for the lock order problem with mmap_sem we could have nailed it that way. Sigh.
Dave
====================================================================== Dave McCracken IBM Linux Base Kernel Team 1-512-838-3059 dmccr@us.ibm.com T/L 678-3059
- 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/
| |