lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Jan]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [patch] fixed both processes in D state and the /proc/ oopses [Re: [patch] Fixed the race that was oopsing Linux-2.2.0]


    On Thu, 28 Jan 1999, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
    >
    > If you remove the kernel lock around do_exit() you _need_ my mm_lock
    > spinlock. You need it to make atomic the decreasing of mm->count and
    > current->mm = &init_mm. If the two instructions are not atomic you have
    > _no_ way to know if you can mmget() at any time the mm of a process.

    Andrea, just go away.

    The two do not _have_ to be atomic, they never had to, and they never
    _will_ have to be atomic. You obviously haven't read all my email
    explaining why they don't have to be atomic.

    > I repeat in another way (just trying to avoid English mistakes):
    > decreasing mm->count has to go in sync with updating current->mm,

    No it has not.

    Linus


    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:50    [W:0.022 / U:64.804 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site