Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 28 Jan 1999 16:17:42 -0800 (PST) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: [patch] fixed both processes in D state and the /proc/ oopses [Re: [patch] Fixed the race that was oopsing Linux-2.2.0] |
| |
On Thu, 28 Jan 1999, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > If you remove the kernel lock around do_exit() you _need_ my mm_lock > spinlock. You need it to make atomic the decreasing of mm->count and > current->mm = &init_mm. If the two instructions are not atomic you have > _no_ way to know if you can mmget() at any time the mm of a process.
Andrea, just go away.
The two do not _have_ to be atomic, they never had to, and they never _will_ have to be atomic. You obviously haven't read all my email explaining why they don't have to be atomic.
> I repeat in another way (just trying to avoid English mistakes): > decreasing mm->count has to go in sync with updating current->mm,
No it has not.
Linus
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |