Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Thu, 15 May 2003 11:40:41 +0200 | From | Andrea Arcangeli <> | Subject | Re: Race between vmtruncate and mapped areas? |
| |
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 02:20:00AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de> 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.
Andrea - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |