[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 07/23/2012 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 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 21:01    [W:0.170 / U:3.164 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site