[lkml]   [2012]   [Jul]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH -alternative] mm: hugetlbfs: Close race during teardown of hugetlbfs shared page tables V2 (resend)
On 07/26/2012 01:42 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 07/23/2012 12:04 AM, Hugh Dickins wrote:
>> Please don't be upset if I say that I don't like either of your patches.
>> Mainly for obvious reasons - I don't like Mel's because anything with
>> trylock retries and nested spinlocks worries me before I can even start
>> to think about it; and I don't like Michal's for the same reason as Mel,
>> that it spreads more change around in common paths than we would like.
> I have a naive question.
> In huge_pmd_share, we protect ourselves by taking
> the mapping->i_mmap_mutex.
> Is there any reason we could not take the i_mmap_mutex
> in the huge_pmd_unshare path?

I think it is already taken on every path into huge_pmd_unshare().

> I see that hugetlb_change_protection already takes that
> lock. Is there something preventing __unmap_hugepage_range
> from also taking mapping->i_mmap_mutex?
> That way the sharing and the unsharing code are
> protected by the same, per shm segment, lock.

 \ /
  Last update: 2012-07-26 20:41    [W:0.129 / U:6.440 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site