lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jan]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH 6/8] mm: handle_speculative_fault()
    From
    Date
    On Thu, 2010-01-07 at 10:44 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
    >
    > On Thu, 7 Jan 2010, Linus Torvalds wrote:
    > >
    > > For example: there's no real reason why we take mmap_sem for writing when
    > > extending an existing vma. And while 'brk()' is a very oldfashioned way of
    > > doing memory management, it's still quite common. So rather than looking
    > > at subtle lockless algorithms, why not look at doing the common cases of
    > > an extending brk? Make that one take the mmap_sem for _reading_, and then
    > > do the extending of the brk area with a simple cmpxchg or something?
    >
    > I didn't use cmpxchg, because we actually want to update both
    > 'current->brk' _and_ the vma->vm_end atomically, so here's a totally
    > untested patch that uses the page_table_lock spinlock for it instead (it
    > could be a new spinlock, not worth it).
    >
    > It's also totally untested and might be horribly broken. But you get the
    > idea.
    >
    > We could probably do things like this in regular mmap() too for the
    > "extend a mmap" case. brk() is just especially simple.

    I haven't yet looked at the patch, but isn't expand_stack() kinda like
    what you want? That serializes using anon_vma_lock().



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-01-07 22:47    [W:0.026 / U:0.040 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site