Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 15 Apr 2004 10:41:28 -0400 (EDT) | From | Rajesh Venkatasubramanian <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] anobjrmap 9 priority mjb tree |
| |
> > I don't know why bit_spin_lock with vma->vm_flags should be a problem > > if it is used without mmap_sem. Can you explain ? > > you seem not to know all rules about the atomic operations in smp, you > cannot just set_bit on one side and use non-atomic operations on the > other side, and expect the set_bit not to invalidate the non-atomic > operations. > > The effect of the mprotect may be deleted by your new concurrent > set_bit and stuff like that.
Thank you very much for that. Stupid me. I didn't read the code in page->flags properly. Thanks again.
Rajesh
- 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/
| |