lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [May]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] mm: change mmap_sem over to the scalable rw_mutex
On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 11:08:24AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 11 May 2007 19:12:16 +0200
> Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> wrote:
>
> > (now with reply-all)
> >
> > On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 09:17 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Fri, 11 May 2007 15:15:43 +0200 Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> wrote:
> > >
> > > > - down_write(&current->mm->mmap_sem);
> > > > + rw_mutex_write_lock(&current->mm->mmap_lock);
> > >
> > > y'know, this is such an important lock and people have had such problems
> > > with it and so many different schemes and ideas have popped up that I'm
> > > kinda thinking that we should wrap it:
> > >
> > > write_lock_mm(struct mm_struct *mm);
> > > write_unlock_mm(struct mm_struct *mm);
> > > read_lock_mm(struct mm_struct *mm);
> > > read_unlock_mm(struct mm_struct *mm);
> > >
> > > so that further experimentations become easier?
> >
> > Sure, can do; it'd require a few more functions than these, but its not
> > too many. However, what is the best way to go about such massive rename
> > actions? Just push them through quickly, and make everybody cope?
>
> Well, if we _do_ decide to do this (is anyone howling?) then we can do
>
> static inline void write_lock_mm(struct mm_struct *mm)
> {
> down_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
> }

I think that would be fine to do.
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-05-14 14:03    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans