[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH] Remove page_table_lock from vma manipulations

To: Dave McCracken <dmccr@us.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove page_table_lock from vma manipulations
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 15:38:09 -0700
CC: Linux Memory Management <linux-mm@kvack.org>,Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Fake-Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org
Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mm-archive@humbolt.geo.uu.nl
References: <133290000.1054765825@baldur.austin.ibm.com>
Sender: Rik van Riel <riel@nl.linux.org>

Dave McCracken wrote:
> 
> After more careful consideration, I don't see any reasons why
> page_table_lock is necessary for dealing with vmas.  I found one spot in
> swapoff, but it was easily changed to mmap_sem.

What keeps the VMA tree consistent when try_to_unmap_one()
runs find_vma()?
--
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/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"aart@kvack.org"> aart@kvack.org </a>

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] Remove page_table_lock from vma manipulations
  - From: Dave McCracken <dmccr@us.ibm.com>

References:
- [PATCH] Remove page_table_lock from vma manipulations
  - From: Dave McCracken <dmccr@us.ibm.com>

Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] Remove page_table_lock from vma manipulations
Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] Remove page_table_lock from vma manipulations
Prev by thread: Re: [PATCH] Remove page_table_lock from vma manipulations
Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] Remove page_table_lock from vma manipulations
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread