[lkml]   [1999]   [Jul]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [2.3.11=pre6]: No OOPS, but mount segfaults remounting "/"?

On Wed, 21 Jul 1999, Alexander Viro wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Jul 1999, Alexander Viro wrote:
> >
> > I already did this myself, let's see what the differences are.
> Hmm... I'ld like to do it, but.. I don't have your version ;-)

Oh, sorry. I'm uploading pre-8 to right now.

A lot of things actually became a lot cleaner with the "two counters"
approach. There may be something I missed, but it was a pleasure to do the

Whether it WORKS is another matter ;). It runs fine here, but I bet there
was some detail I missed.

Note that my implementation changed a bit from what I outlined yesterday
evening: the non-lazy mm's count as just "one" in mm_count. So instead of

if (atomic_dec_and_test(&mm->mm_users)) {
drop user space parts

if (atomic_dec_and_test(&mm->mm_count) {
free the page table and the mm

if became

if (atomic_dec_and_test(&mm->mm_users)) {
drop user space parts
if (atomic_dec_and_test(&mm->mm_count) {
free the page table and the mm

instead. It made things simpler in some other areas.

> One comment: I don't think that fix for swap_out() (both in my old patch
> and in -pre7) is right. We might go through ->active_mm and be done with
> that. Comments?

We make all the "best" decisions on the mm anyway, so as far as I can see
we would find the same mm regardless of which approach we took. No?

The only difference is when somebody has an active_mm that doesn't even
exist as a non-lazy VM, but when that happens the VM should have been
cleared up already anyway, so that should be a non-issue as far as
swap_out() is concerned.


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 13:53    [W:0.036 / U:26.524 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site