From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: change mmap_sem over to the scalable rw_mutex From: Peter Zijlstra In-Reply-To: <20070511091744.236e8409.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <20070511131541.992688403@chello.nl> <20070511132321.984615201@chello.nl> <20070511091744.236e8409.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 19:12:16 +0200 Message-Id: <1178903537.2781.13.camel@lappy> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andrew Morton Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Oleg Nesterov , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , Nick Piggin List-ID: (now with reply-all) On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 09:17 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 11 May 2007 15:15:43 +0200 Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > - down_write(¤t->mm->mmap_sem); > > + rw_mutex_write_lock(¤t->mm->mmap_lock); > > y'know, this is such an important lock and people have had such problems > with it and so many different schemes and ideas have popped up that I'm > kinda thinking that we should wrap it: > > write_lock_mm(struct mm_struct *mm); > write_unlock_mm(struct mm_struct *mm); > read_lock_mm(struct mm_struct *mm); > read_unlock_mm(struct mm_struct *mm); > > so that further experimentations become easier? Sure, can do; it'd require a few more functions than these, but its not too many. However, what is the best way to go about such massive rename actions? Just push them through quickly, and make everybody cope? -- 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: email@kvack.org