[lkml]   [1999]   [Oct]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: locking question: do_mmap(), do_munmap()

On Mon, 11 Oct 1999, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:

> Hi,
> On Mon, 11 Oct 1999 20:02:40 +0200, Manfred Spraul
> <> said:
> > What about something like a rw-semaphore which protects the vma list:
> > vma-list modifiers [ie merge_segments(), insert_vm_struct() and
> > do_munmap()] grab it exclusive, swapper grabs it "shared, starve
> > exclusive".
> Deadlock. Process A tries to do an mmap on mm A, gets the exclusive
> lock, tries to swap out from process B, and grabs mm B's shared lock.
> Process B in the mean time is doing the same thing and has an exclusive
> lock on mm B, and is trying to share-lock A. Whoops.

<looking at the places in question>
insert_vm_struct doesn't allocate anything.
Ditto for merge_segments
In do_munmap() the area that should be protected (ripping the vmas from
the list) doesn't allocate anything too.
In the swapper we are protected from recursion, aren't we?

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

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:54    [W:0.099 / U:7.984 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site