[lkml]   [2003]   [May]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Race between vmtruncate and mapped areas?
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 02:20:00AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Andrea Arcangeli <> wrote:
> >
> > and it's still racy
> damn, and it just booted ;)
> I'm just a little bit concerned over the ever-expanding inode. Do you
> think the dual sequence numbers can be replaced by a single generation
> counter?

yes, I wrote it as a single counter first, but was unreadable and it had
more branches, so I added the other sequence number to make it cleaner.
I don't mind another 4 bytes, that cacheline should be hot anyways.

> I do think that we should push the revalidate operation over into the vm_ops.
> That'll require an extra arg to ->nopage, but it has a spare one anyway (!).

not sure why you need a callback, the lowlevel if needed can serialize
using the same locking in the address space that vmtruncate uses. I
would wait a real case need before adding a callback.

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

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:35    [W:0.119 / U:3.400 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site