[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch 02/10] emm: notifier logic
On Mon, 7 Apr 2008, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:

> > > My mm_lock solution makes all rcu serialization an unnecessary
> > > overhead so you should remove it like I already did in #v11. If it
> > > wasn't the case, then mm_lock wouldn't be a definitive fix for the
> > > race.
> >
> > There still could be junk in the cache of one cpu. If you just read the
> > new pointer but use the earlier content pointed to then you have a
> > problem.
> There can't be junk, spinlocks provides semantics of proper memory
> barriers, just like rcu, so it's entirely superflous.
> There could be junk only if any of the mmu_notifier_* methods would be
> invoked _outside_ the i_mmap_lock and _outside_ the anon_vma and
> outside the mmap_sem, that is never the case of course.

So we use other locks to perform serialization on the list chains?
Basically the list chains are protected by either mmap_sem or an rmap
lock? We need to document that.

In that case we could also add an unregister function.

 \ /
  Last update: 2008-04-07 08:23    [W:0.059 / U:1.456 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site