lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Dec]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [mm][RFC][PATCH 0/11] mm accessor updates.
    From
    Date
    On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 10:27 -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote:
    > On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, Andi Kleen wrote:
    >
    > > > Do you have alternative recommendation rather than wrapping all accesses by
    > > > special functions ?
    > >
    > > Work out what changes need to be done for ranged mmap locks and do them all
    > > in one pass.
    >
    > Locking ranges is already possible through the split ptlock and
    > could be enhanced through placing locks in the vma structures.
    >
    > That does nothing solve the basic locking issues of mmap_sem. We need
    > Kame-sans abstraction layer. A vma based lock or a ptlock still needs to
    > ensure that the mm struct does not vanish while the lock is held.

    It should, you shouldn't be able to remove a mm while there's still
    vma's around, and you shouldn't be able to remove a vma when there's
    still pagetables around. And if you rcu-free all of them you're stable
    enough for lots of speculative behaviour.

    No need to retain mmap_sem for any of that.

    As for per-vma locks, those are pretty much useless too, there's plenty
    applications doing lots of work on a few very large vmas.



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-12-17 00:05    [W:4.032 / U:1.032 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site