Messages in this thread | | | From | "Stephen C. Tweedie" <> | Date | Wed, 13 Oct 1999 11:25:36 +0100 (BST) | Subject | Re: locking question: do_mmap(), do_munmap() |
| |
Hi,
On Mon, 11 Oct 1999 18:31:37 -0400 (EDT), Alexander Viro <viro@math.psu.edu> said:
> And spinlock being released in the ->swapout() is outright ugly. OK, so > we are adding to mm_struct a new semaphore (vma_sem) and getting it around > the places where the list is modified + in the swapper (for scanning). In > normal situation it will never give us contention - everyone except > swapper uses it with mmap_sem already held. Are there any objections > against it? If it's OK I'll go ahead and do it. Comments?
Looks OK as long as the swapper remains non-recursive and we never, ever allocate memory outside the swapper with vma_sem held.
--Stephen
- 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/
| |