[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RFC] Page table sharing
- To: Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br>,Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com>
- Subject: Re: [RFC] Page table sharing
- From: Daniel Phillips <phillips@bonn-fries.net>
- Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 02:29:29 +0100
- Cc: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>, <dmccr@us.ibm.com>,Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,<linux-mm@kvack.org>, Robert Love <rml@tech9.net>,<mingo@redhat.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@zip.com.au>,<manfred@colorfullife.com>, <wli@holomorphy.com>
- Fake-Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org
- In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.33L.0202182221040.1930-100000@imladris.surriel.com>
- Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mm-archive@humbolt.geo.uu.nl
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.33L.0202182221040.1930-100000@imladris.surriel.com>
- Sender: Rik van Riel <riel@nl.linux.org>
On February 19, 2002 02:22 am, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2002, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks, here it is again.
> >
> > Daniel, there's something wrong in the locking.
>
> > Does anybody see any reason why this doesn't work totally without the
> > lock?
>
> We'll need protection from the swapout code. It would be
> embarassing if the page fault handler would run for one
> mm while kswapd was holding the page_table_lock for another
> mm.
>
> I'm not sure how the page_table_share_lock is supposed
> to fix that one, though.
It doesn't, at present. This needs to be addressed.
--
Daniel
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/