Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/5] change direct call of spin_lock(anon_vma->lock) to inline function | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Date | Wed, 02 Jun 2010 10:27:55 +0200 |
| |
On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 15:04 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 26 May 2010 15:39:26 -0400 > Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> wrote: > > > @@ -303,10 +303,10 @@ again: > > goto out; > > > > anon_vma = (struct anon_vma *) (anon_mapping - PAGE_MAPPING_ANON); > > - spin_lock(&anon_vma->lock); > > + anon_vma_lock(anon_vma); > > > > if (page_rmapping(page) != anon_vma) { > > - spin_unlock(&anon_vma->lock); > > + anon_vma_unlock(anon_vma); > > goto again; > > } > > > > This bit is dependent upon Peter's > mm-revalidate-anon_vma-in-page_lock_anon_vma.patch (below). I've been > twiddling thumbs for weeks awaiting the updated version of that patch > (hint).
Yeah, drop it, the updated patch is only a comment trying to explain why the current code is ok.
> Do we think that this patch series is needed in 2.6.35? If so, why? > And if so I guess we'll need to route around > mm-revalidate-anon_vma-in-page_lock_anon_vma.patch, or just merge it > as-is. >
I don't actually think that patch of mine is needed, the reject Rik's patch generates without it is rather trivial to fix up, if you want I can send you a fixed up version.
| |